Abstract
No-tillage (NT) is a conservation practice adopted by 60% of the Brazilian farmers. Due to unsuitable management, compaction problem reported in soils under NT has increased. The study aimed to evaluate the influence of different soil tillage and different winter cover crops in long-term on crops biomass and maize yield and on soil penetration resistance (PR), in two crop seasons. The long-term experiment is located at the UTFPR Dois Vizinhos experimental station, with a combination of five soil tillage: NT; NT chiseled up to 0.35 m deep (Jumbo), annually (NTCa) and triennially (NTCt); NT with minimum tillage chiseled up to 0.35 m deep (Terrus), annually (NTMTa) and triennially (NTMTt); and four winter cover crops: black oats, common vetch, forage radish, and a mixture of oats + vetch + radish (mix). Dry matter production of cover crops was higher in oats and the mix, and in NTMTa in both years (2021 and 2022). Soil chiseling reduces PR, however over time, an increase was observed. NT showed higher PR, especially in the 0.15-0.20 m soil layer, but it did not impact crop production. Maize yield was not influenced by cover crops or soil tillage. NT proved to be the most efficient soil management, as its performance in maize yield was similar to the others, indicating the way forward in the pursuit of a more sustainable agriculture.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter production of cover crops was higher for oats and the mix in the long-term experiment.
- Taxon
- oats
Avena sativae1 - Material
- oatse1
- Outcome
- Dry matter production of cover cropse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Setting
- UTFPR Dois Vizinhos experimental statione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The long-term experiment is located at the UTFPR Dois Vizinhos experimental station”
e1“Dry matter production of cover crops was higher in oats and the mix, and in NTMTa in both years (2021 and 2022)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter production of cover crops was higher under NTMTa in both years.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Yield and Soil Penetration Resistance”
e1“Dry matter production of cover crops was higher in oats and the mix, and in NTMTa in both years (2021 and 2022)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil chiseling reduced soil penetration resistance (PR) relative to no chiseling.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Yield and Soil Penetration Resistance”
e2“Soil chiseling reduces PR, however over time, an increase was observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil penetration resistance (PR) increased over time after soil chiseling.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Yield and Soil Penetration Resistance”
e2“Soil chiseling reduces PR, however over time, an increase was observed”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage (NT) showed higher soil penetration resistance (PR), especially in the 0.15-0.20 m soil layer.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Yield and Soil Penetration Resistance”
e3“NT showed higher PR, especially in the 0.15-0.20 m soil layer, but it did not impact crop production”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage (NT) did not impact crop production.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Yield and Soil Penetration Resistance”
e3“NT showed higher PR, especially in the 0.15-0.20 m soil layer, but it did not impact crop production”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield was not influenced by cover crops.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Maize yield was not influenced by cover crops or soil tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield was not influenced by soil tillage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Maize yield was not influenced by cover crops or soil tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage (NT) performance in maize yield was similar to the other tillage systems.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“NT proved to be the most efficient soil management, as its performance in maize yield was similar to the others”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend no-tillage (NT) as the most efficient soil management for maize.
- Outcome
- the most efficient soil managemente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize Yield and Soil Penetration Resistance”
e5“NT proved to be the most efficient soil management, as its performance in maize yield was similar to the others”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →cover crop · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
218 papers more in this group
See all 222 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.