Abstract
In regard to soil preservation as an important resource and maize cultivation under variable climatic conditions, reduced soil tillage is widely adopted. The experiment was settled down in 1978, and two periods, 2005-2014 and 2015-2024, were compared regarding the impact of soil tillage and fertilization regime on maize productivity. Maize hybrid (FAO 600) was grown with different tillage: no-tillage (NT), reduced (RT), and conventional tillage (CT), as well as N fertilization rate – 0 (F1), 180 (F2) and 240 kg N ha-1 (F3), including rainfall conditions vs. irrigation, as the 3rd factor. Maize grain yield (MY) was measured after harvest and calculated at 14% of moisture. Data were processed by ANOVA, and Weibull analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of meteorological factors on yield potential. MY was 7.8% and 16.0% higher in RT and CT than in NT during the 2005-2014 period, while the differences were 11.6% and 23.0% in the second period. Similarly, nitrogen application in F2 and F3 caused significant increase in MY by 26.0% and 33.3% in the first period and 23.1% and 27.4% in the 2015-2024 period. In average, MY was higher in the first (9.7 t ha-1) than in the second ten-year‘s period (8.4 t ha-1) for 34.7%. Irrigation increased MY in average from 8.3 to 11.1 t ha-1 in the first period and from 7.2 to 9.7 t ha-1 in the second period. Weibull analysis showed that NT has extremely high yield potential but only when all environmental conditions are extremely favorable (0.1 reliability). In less favorable growing conditions, yield decreases gradually, with increased differences between rainfall conditions and irrigation, especially when it comes to the RT and CT (reliability 0.9). This indicates that in agroecological conditions of Zemun Polje and slightly chalcaceous chernozem, CT is more convenient regarding maize yield.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage (RT) gave 7.8% higher maize yield than no-tillage (NT) in 2005-2014.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e0“MY was 7.8% and 16.0% higher in RT and CT than in NT during the 2005-2014 period”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage (CT) gave 16.0% higher maize yield than no-tillage (NT) in 2005-2014.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e0“MY was 7.8% and 16.0% higher in RT and CT than in NT during the 2005-2014 period”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage (RT) gave 11.6% higher maize yield than no-tillage (NT) in the second period.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e0“MY was 7.8% and 16.0% higher in RT and CT than in NT during the 2005-2014 period”
e1“while the differences were 11.6% and 23.0% in the second period”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage (CT) gave 23.0% higher maize yield than no-tillage (NT) in the second period.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e0“MY was 7.8% and 16.0% higher in RT and CT than in NT during the 2005-2014 period”
e1“while the differences were 11.6% and 23.0% in the second period”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application in F2 significantly increased maize yield by 26.0% in the first period.
- Treatment
- nitrogen application in F2e3
- Outcome
- MYe3
- Direction
- significant increasee3
- Value
- 26.0%e3
- Qualifier
- first periode3
- Comparator
- 0 (F1)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e2“N fertilization rate – 0 (F1), 180 (F2) and 240 kg N ha-1 (F3)”
e3“Similarly, nitrogen application in F2 and F3 caused significant increase in MY by 26.0% and 33.3% in the first period and 23.1% and 27.4% in the 2015-2024 period”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application in F3 significantly increased maize yield by 33.3% in the first period.
- Treatment
- F3e3
- Outcome
- MYe3
- Direction
- significant increasee3
- Value
- 33.3%e3
- Qualifier
- first periode3
- Comparator
- 0 (F1)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e2“N fertilization rate – 0 (F1), 180 (F2) and 240 kg N ha-1 (F3)”
e3“Similarly, nitrogen application in F2 and F3 caused significant increase in MY by 26.0% and 33.3% in the first period and 23.1% and 27.4% in the 2015-2024 period”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application in F2 significantly increased maize yield by 23.1% in the 2015-2024 period.
- Treatment
- F2e3
- Outcome
- MYe3
- Direction
- significant increasee3
- Value
- 23.1%e3
- Qualifier
- 2015-2024 periode3
- Comparator
- 0 (F1)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e2“N fertilization rate – 0 (F1), 180 (F2) and 240 kg N ha-1 (F3)”
e3“Similarly, nitrogen application in F2 and F3 caused significant increase in MY by 26.0% and 33.3% in the first period and 23.1% and 27.4% in the 2015-2024 period”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application in F3 significantly increased maize yield by 27.4% in the 2015-2024 period.
- Treatment
- F3e3
- Outcome
- MYe3
- Direction
- significant increasee3
- Value
- 27.4%e3
- Qualifier
- 2015-2024 periode3
- Comparator
- 0 (F1)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e2“N fertilization rate – 0 (F1), 180 (F2) and 240 kg N ha-1 (F3)”
e3“Similarly, nitrogen application in F2 and F3 caused significant increase in MY by 26.0% and 33.3% in the first period and 23.1% and 27.4% in the 2015-2024 period”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield was higher in the first ten-year period than in the second, by 34.7%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e4“In average, MY was higher in the first (9.7 t ha-1) than in the second ten-year‘s period (8.4 t ha-1) for 34.7%”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased maize yield from 8.3 to 11.1 t/ha in the first period compared with rainfall conditions.
- Treatment
- Irrigatione5
- Outcome
- MYe5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 8.3 to 11.1 t ha-1e5
- Qualifier
- first periode5
- Comparator
- rainfall conditionse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e5“Irrigation increased MY in average from 8.3 to 11.1 t ha-1 in the first period and from 7.2 to 9.7 t ha-1 in the second period”
e6“including rainfall conditions vs. irrigation, as the 3rd factor”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased maize yield from 7.2 to 9.7 t/ha in the second period compared with rainfall conditions.
- Treatment
- Irrigatione5
- Outcome
- MYe5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 7.2 to 9.7 t ha-1e5
- Qualifier
- second periode5
- Comparator
- rainfall conditionse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e5“Irrigation increased MY in average from 8.3 to 11.1 t ha-1 in the first period and from 7.2 to 9.7 t ha-1 in the second period”
e6“including rainfall conditions vs. irrigation, as the 3rd factor”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage (NT) has extremely high maize yield potential, but only when all environmental conditions are extremely favorable.
- Treatment
- NTe7
- Outcome
- yield potentiale7
- Value
- 0.1 reliabilitye7
- Qualifier
- only when all environmental conditions are extremely favorablee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e7“Weibull analysis showed that NT has extremely high yield potential but only when all environmental conditions are extremely favorable (0.1 reliability)”
Claim · model-written summary
In less favorable growing conditions, maize yield under RT and CT decreases gradually.
- Treatment
- RT and CTe6
- Outcome
- yielde6
- Direction
- decreases graduallye6
- Qualifier
- less favorable growing conditionse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e6“In less favorable growing conditions, yield decreases gradually, with increased differences between rainfall conditions and irrigation, especially when it comes to the RT and CT (reliability 0.9)”
Claim · model-written summary
In less favorable growing conditions, differences between rainfall and irrigation yields increase for RT and CT.
- Treatment
- RT and CTe6
- Outcome
- differences between rainfall conditions and irrigatione6
- Direction
- increased differencese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e6“In less favorable growing conditions, yield decreases gradually, with increased differences between rainfall conditions and irrigation, especially when it comes to the RT and CT (reliability 0.9)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage (CT) is more convenient for maize yield in the agroecological conditions of Zemun Polje.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production technology”
e7“This indicates that in agroecological conditions of Zemun Polje and slightly chalcaceous chernozem, CT is more convenient regarding maize yield”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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
- no effect
- negative
- 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.