Abstract
In South Asian regions, the traditional maize–mustard rotation (MMR) has become less profitable and unsustainable due to inappropriate fertilization practices and the degradation of soil properties. Therefore, climate-smart and sustainable farm practices are necessary to mitigate production risks and improve soil properties. This study evaluated the long-term impacts of conservation tillage and nutrient management on equivalent yields, soil microbial properties, and water-energy savings. A long-term field experiment was initiated 9 years ago, using the split-plot design to evaluate the three conservation tillage (CA)-based crop establishment practices, i.e., zero tillage (ZT) and conventional tillage (CT), permanent beds (PNB). Each practice was accompanied by the recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF), improved RDF (RDF I ), and nutrient expert-guided (NE I ) fertilization. CA-based tillage (ZT or PNB) resulted in 24.4–25.2% greater maize grain equivalent yields (EY) compared to the CT, while the NE I and RDF I produced statistically ( p = 0.05) identical EY, being 26.6–30.3% greater than the RDF. These practices substantially reduced the water footprints, besides 11.9–12.9% and 23.4–26.6% (9-yrs average) greater water productivity compared to CT and RDF, respectively. In fact, at 0–45 cm soil depth, residues retained ZT or PNB had 31.9–42.2%, 56.5–67.2%, and 16.5–18.3% more bacterial (10 7 ), fungi (10 4 ), and actinomycetes (10 4 ) populations, respectively. Across soil depths, ZT or PNB recorded 7.65–11% and 23.2–31.9% greater soil microbial biomass-C and -P, respectively. Compared to CT-based practices, these practices also improved soil mineralizable N (NO 3 − N/NH 4 + N). The conventionally tilled plots consumed greater direct and indirect non-renewable energy than the CA-based residue-retaining practices. By virtue of residue retention, the PNB and ZT had ~108% greater energy input (E I ) than the CT, whereas it was vice versa in terms of the energy output (E O ). The NE I registered a 7.6–28.7% higher E O than the RDF I and RDF. These long-term field studies demonstrated that adopting CA-based ZT, or PNB, in combination with precise nutrient management would enhance equivalent yields and soil microbial dynamics, besides improving water-energy footprints in maize–mustard growing ecologies.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
CA-based tillage (ZT or PNB) increased maize grain equivalent yield by 24.4–25.2% relative to conventional tillage (CT).
- Treatment
- CA-based tillage (ZT or PNB)e1
- Outcome
- maize grain equivalent yields (EY)e1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 24.4–25.2%e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CA-based tillage (ZT or PNB) resulted in 24.4–25.2% greater maize grain equivalent yields (EY) compared to the CT”
Claim · model-written summary
NE I and RDF I gave statistically identical equivalent yields (EY).
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e2“the NE I and RDF I produced statistically ( p = 0.05) identical EY”
Claim · model-written summary
NE I and RDF I gave equivalent yields (EY) 26.6–30.3% greater than RDF.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e2“the NE I and RDF I produced statistically ( p = 0.05) identical EY”
e3“being 26.6–30.3% greater than the RDF”
Claim · model-written summary
These practices substantially reduced the water footprints of the maize–mustard rotation.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e4“These practices substantially reduced the water footprints”
Claim · model-written summary
Practices with CA-based tillage and precise nutrient management had 11.9–12.9% greater water productivity than CT over 9 years on average.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e4“These practices substantially reduced the water footprints”
e5“11.9–12.9% and 23.4–26.6% (9-yrs average) greater water productivity compared to CT and RDF, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Practices with CA-based tillage and precise nutrient management had 23.4–26.6% greater water productivity than RDF over 9 years on average.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e4“These practices substantially reduced the water footprints”
e5“11.9–12.9% and 23.4–26.6% (9-yrs average) greater water productivity compared to CT and RDF, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue-retaining ZT or PNB increased bacterial populations by 31.9–42.2% at 0–45 cm soil depth.
- Taxon
- maize–mustard rotationt0
- Treatment
- residues retained ZT or PNBe6
- Outcome
- bacteriale6
- Direction
- moree6
- Value
- 31.9–42.2%e6
- Setting
- 0–45 cm soil depthe6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e6“In fact, at 0–45 cm soil depth, residues retained ZT or PNB had 31.9–42.2%, 56.5–67.2%, and 16.5–18.3% more bacterial (10 7 ), fungi (10 4 ), and actinomycetes (10 4 ) populations, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue-retaining ZT or PNB increased fungal populations by 56.5–67.2% at 0–45 cm soil depth.
- Taxon
- maize–mustard rotationt0
- Treatment
- residues retained ZT or PNBe6
- Outcome
- fungie6
- Direction
- moree6
- Value
- 56.5–67.2%e6
- Setting
- 0–45 cm soil depthe6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e6“In fact, at 0–45 cm soil depth, residues retained ZT or PNB had 31.9–42.2%, 56.5–67.2%, and 16.5–18.3% more bacterial (10 7 ), fungi (10 4 ), and actinomycetes (10 4 ) populations, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue-retaining ZT or PNB increased actinomycete populations by 16.5–18.3% at 0–45 cm soil depth.
- Taxon
- maize–mustard rotationt0
- Treatment
- residues retained ZT or PNBe6
- Outcome
- actinomycetese6
- Direction
- moree6
- Value
- 16.5–18.3%e6
- Setting
- 0–45 cm soil depthe6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e6“In fact, at 0–45 cm soil depth, residues retained ZT or PNB had 31.9–42.2%, 56.5–67.2%, and 16.5–18.3% more bacterial (10 7 ), fungi (10 4 ), and actinomycetes (10 4 ) populations, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
ZT or PNB increased soil microbial biomass-C by 7.65–11% across soil depths.
- Taxon
- maize–mustard rotationt0
- Treatment
- ZT or PNBe7
- Outcome
- soil microbial biomass-Ce7
- Direction
- greatere7
- Value
- 7.65–11%e7
- Setting
- Across soil depthse7
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e7“Across soil depths, ZT or PNB recorded 7.65–11% and 23.2–31.9% greater soil microbial biomass-C and -P, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
ZT or PNB increased soil microbial biomass-P by 23.2–31.9% across soil depths.
- Taxon
- maize–mustard rotationt0
- Treatment
- ZT or PNBe7
- Outcome
- soil microbial biomasse7
- Direction
- greatere7
- Value
- 23.2–31.9%e7
- Qualifier
- -Pe7
- Setting
- Across soil depthse7
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e7“Across soil depths, ZT or PNB recorded 7.65–11% and 23.2–31.9% greater soil microbial biomass-C and -P, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CA-based practices improved soil mineralizable N compared with CT-based practices.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e0“Compared to CT-based practices, these practices also improved soil mineralizable N (NO 3 − N/NH 4 + N)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventionally tilled plots consumed greater direct and indirect non-renewable energy than CA-based residue-retaining practices.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e1“The conventionally tilled plots consumed greater direct and indirect non-renewable energy than the CA-based residue-retaining practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention gave PNB and ZT about 108% greater energy input than CT.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e2“By virtue of residue retention, the PNB and ZT had ~108% greater energy input (E I ) than the CT”
Claim · model-written summary
PNB and ZT had lower energy output than CT under residue retention.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e2“By virtue of residue retention, the PNB and ZT had ~108% greater energy input (E I ) than the CT”
e3“whereas it was vice versa in terms of the energy output (E O )”
Claim · model-written summary
NE I gave 7.6–28.7% higher energy output than RDF I and RDF.
Verbatim
t0“maize–mustard rotation”
e4“The NE I registered a 7.6–28.7% higher E O than the RDF I and RDF”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
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.