Abstract
No‐tillage (NT) management protects soil from wind and water erosion and improves soil health. Uncertainty in farm production under location‐specific NT practices poses challenges to adopting it by the farming community. To address this challenge, a 4‐year study (2019–2022) was conducted on farm‐size plots (∼1.25 ha) focused on comparing soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.) yield and soil health benefits of an NT system with a conventional tillage (CT) system in silt loam soil. The NT and CT plots were under corn production over the previous 11 years. Compared to CT, in the 0–20 cm layer, soil bulk density ( ρ ), total nitrogen (TN), and soil organic carbon (C) increased, but field‐saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K fs ) decreased in the 10 cm below the soil surface under NT. Higher ρ was also noticed in the 10–30 cm soil. There were no significant differences between NT and CT in water stable aggregate stability for 0.25–0.5, 0.5–1.0, 1.0–2.0, and 2.0–4.0 mm aggregate classes. While the higher ρ and lower K fs under NT can potentially restrict plant root expansion, the beneficial effects of C and TN appear to make up for those adverse effects, culminating in comparable seed yield returns. Over four years, soybean seed harvested from NT (5440 kg ha −1 ) was 1% less than CT (5480 kg ha −1 ). Therefore, adopting the NT system increases net returns by reducing tillage‐associated expenses without compromising soybean yields in the Lower Mississippi Delta region, which can improve soil and water conservation.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased soil bulk density relative to conventional tillage in the 0–20 cm layer.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- NTe2
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cme1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
e1“Compared to CT, in the 0–20 cm layer, soil bulk density ( ρ ), total nitrogen (TN), and soil organic carbon (C) increased”
e2“under NT. Higher ρ was also noticed”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased total nitrogen relative to conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
e1“Compared to CT, in the 0–20 cm layer, soil bulk density ( ρ ), total nitrogen (TN), and soil organic carbon (C) increased”
e2“under NT. Higher ρ was also noticed”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage increased soil organic carbon relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTe2
- Outcome
- soil organic carbone1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
e1“Compared to CT, in the 0–20 cm layer, soil bulk density ( ρ ), total nitrogen (TN), and soil organic carbon (C) increased”
e2“under NT. Higher ρ was also noticed”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage decreased field-saturated hydraulic conductivity at 10 cm depth.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- field‐saturated hydraulic conductivitye1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Qualifier
- 10 cm below the soil surfacee1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
e1“Compared to CT, in the 0–20 cm layer, soil bulk density ( ρ ), total nitrogen (TN), and soil organic carbon (C) increased, but field‐saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K fs ) decreased in the 10 cm below the soil surface under NT.”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage had higher soil bulk density in the 10–30 cm layer.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
e1“Higher ρ was also noticed in the 10–30 cm soil.”
e2“under NT. Higher ρ was also noticed”
e3“Compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Aggregate stability did not differ significantly between tillage systems across the four size classes.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- water stable aggregate stabilitye1
- Direction
- no significant differencese1
- Qualifier
- 0.25–0.5, 0.5–1.0, 1.0–2.0, and 2.0–4.0 mme1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean ( Glycine max [L.] Merr.)”
e1“There were no significant differences between NT and CT in water stable aggregate stability for 0.25–0.5, 0.5–1.0, 1.0–2.0, and 2.0–4.0 mm aggregate classes.”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage soybean seed yield was 1% below conventional tillage yield over four years.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- soybean seede0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 1%e0
- Qualifier
- 5440 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over four years, soybean seed harvested from NT (5440 kg ha −1 ) was 1% less than CT (5480 kg ha −1 ).”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that no-tillage increases net returns through reduced tillage costs.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- adopting the NT system increases net returnse0
- Setting
- Lower Mississippi Delta regione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“adopting the NT system increases net returns by reducing tillage‐associated expenses without compromising soybean yields in the Lower Mississippi Delta region”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: chemistry · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →tillage · organism · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 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.