Abstract
Information on the influence of alternative tillage methods on soil properties when imposed on grazed pasture especially in the rainforest agroecological zone of Nigeria remains fragmentary. The study, aimed at evaluating the responses of soil properties and plant growth parameters (PGP) to maximum (conventional) (MXT), conservation (minimum) (CST) and no-tillage (NOT) was conducted on two adjacent but fenced plots: grazed pasture (GP) and cultivated land (CL). The test crop was maize in a 2 x 3 x 3 completely randomized block experiment. Soil samples collected from 0-10, 10-20 and 20-40cm depths were analysed using standard laboratory procedures and PGP was also monitored for two consecutive cropping seasons. On the GP, for instance, after 2 years under CST, soil compaction indicators like bulk density (BD) and cone index (CI) changed from 1.42 to 1.31 and 4.5 to 3.1 respectively while hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and infiltration rate (Ir) varied from 61.5 to 50.1 and 73.1 to 56.8, gravimetric moisture content (GMC) changed from 15.9 to 12.4%. Soil organic carbon (SOC) under GP was averaged 13.3% before the experiment but reduced to 1.1, 2.1 and 4.1 respectively under NOT, MXT, and CST after 2 years. Furthermore, Maize yield was 4.7. 4.1 and 3.8 tons/ha for CST, MXT and NOT respectively after the first cropping season but reduced significantly at the end of 2nd year to 3.6, 3.3 and 2.5 tons/ha. However, on the CL, no significant changes in either crop or soil were recorded.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation tillage on grazed pasture, soil bulk density fell from 1.42 to 1.31 after two years.
- Treatment
- CSTe0
- Outcome
- bulk density (BD)e0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 1.42 to 1.31e0
- Comparator
- GPe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On the GP, for instance, after 2 years under CST, soil compaction indicators like bulk density (BD) and cone index (CI) changed from 1.42 to 1.31 and 4.5 to 3.1 respectively”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation tillage on grazed pasture, cone index fell from 4.5 to 3.1 after two years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On the GP, for instance, after 2 years under CST, soil compaction indicators like bulk density (BD) and cone index (CI) changed from 1.42 to 1.31 and 4.5 to 3.1 respectively”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation tillage on grazed pasture, soil hydraulic conductivity fell from 61.5 to 50.1.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and infiltration rate (Ir) varied from 61.5 to 50.1 and 73.1 to 56.8”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation tillage on grazed pasture, infiltration rate fell from 73.1 to 56.8.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and infiltration rate (Ir) varied from 61.5 to 50.1 and 73.1 to 56.8”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation tillage on grazed pasture, gravimetric moisture content fell from 15.9 to 12.4%.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gravimetric moisture content (GMC) changed from 15.9 to 12.4%.”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
On grazed pasture, no tillage reduced soil organic carbon from 13.3% to 1.1% after two years.
- Treatment
- NOTe0
- Outcome
- Soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 1.1e0
- Qualifier
- 13.3%e0
- Comparator
- before the experimente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil organic carbon (SOC) under GP was averaged 13.3% before the experiment but reduced to 1.1, 2.1 and 4.1 respectively under NOT, MXT, and CST after 2 years.”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
On grazed pasture, conventional tillage reduced soil organic carbon from 13.3% to 2.1 after two years.
- Treatment
- MXTe0
- Outcome
- Soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 2.1e0
- Qualifier
- 13.3%e0
- Comparator
- before the experimente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil organic carbon (SOC) under GP was averaged 13.3% before the experiment but reduced to 1.1, 2.1 and 4.1 respectively under NOT, MXT, and CST after 2 years.”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
On grazed pasture, conservation tillage reduced soil organic carbon from 13.3% to 4.1 after two years.
- Treatment
- CSTe0
- Outcome
- Soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 4.1e0
- Qualifier
- 13.3%e0
- Comparator
- before the experimente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil organic carbon (SOC) under GP was averaged 13.3% before the experiment but reduced to 1.1, 2.1 and 4.1 respectively under NOT, MXT, and CST after 2 years.”
t0“The test crop was maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage yielded 4.7 tons/ha maize in the first season and 3.6 tons/ha in year two.
- Treatment
- CSTe0
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 3.6e0
- Qualifier
- 4.7e0
- Comparator
- first cropping seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was 4.7. 4.1 and 3.8 tons/ha for CST, MXT and NOT respectively after the first cropping season but reduced significantly at the end of 2nd year to 3.6, 3.3 and 2.5 tons/ha.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage yielded 4.1 tons/ha maize in the first season and 3.3 tons/ha in year two.
- Treatment
- MXTe0
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 3.3e0
- Qualifier
- 4.1e0
- Comparator
- first cropping seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was 4.7. 4.1 and 3.8 tons/ha for CST, MXT and NOT respectively after the first cropping season but reduced significantly at the end of 2nd year to 3.6, 3.3 and 2.5 tons/ha.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage yielded 3.8 tons/ha maize in the first season and 2.5 tons/ha in year two.
- Treatment
- NOTe0
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 2.5e0
- Qualifier
- 3.8e0
- Comparator
- first cropping seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield was 4.7. 4.1 and 3.8 tons/ha for CST, MXT and NOT respectively after the first cropping season but reduced significantly at the end of 2nd year to 3.6, 3.3 and 2.5 tons/ha.”
Claim · model-written summary
On cultivated land, no significant crop or soil changes were recorded.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, on the CL, no significant changes in either crop or soil were recorded.”
t0“The test crop was maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 68 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 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.