Abstract
Long-term conventional tillage exacerbates subsoil compaction, restricting root penetration and water and nutrient uptake. Although subsoiling is known to mitigate plough pan formation, the interactive effects of tillage and straw return on root system architecture (RSA) and water productivity (WP) in maize remain poorly understood. Based on a long-term field experiment, this study evaluated three tillage methods (plough tillage, PT; subsoiling tillage, ST; and rotary tillage, RT) and two straw management practices (no return and all straw return). We investigated effects of tillage and straw management on soil hydro-physical properties, maize RSA, and their consequent impacts on grain yield and WP. ST significantly reduced soil bulk density by 5.4 % and increased porosity by 6.4 % in the 0–40 cm soil compared to PT. The integration of subsoiling with straw return (STA) was particularly effective, enhancing subsoil fertility and promoting a deeper, coarser root system. STA increased root length density by 33 %, root weight density by 28 %, and root diameter by 41 % in the subsoil (40–60 cm soil). This optimized RSA improved access to deep soil water and nutrients, resulting in a 4.7 % increase in grain yield and a 3.8 % increase in WP compared to plough tillage with straw return. Subsoiling tillage-straw synergy reshapes RSA by alleviating mechanical impedance and enhancing subsoil fertility, offering a scalable strategy to improve crop resilience and resource efficiency.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
Subsoiling reduced soil bulk density by 5.4% relative to plough tillage.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST significantly reduced soil bulk density by 5.4 % and increased porosity by 6.4 % in the 0–40 cm soil compared to PT”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling increased soil porosity by 6.4% relative to plough tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST significantly reduced soil bulk density by 5.4 % and increased porosity by 6.4 % in the 0–40 cm soil compared to PT”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling with straw return enhanced subsoil fertility.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The integration of subsoiling with straw return (STA) was particularly effective, enhancing subsoil fertility and promoting a deeper, coarser root system”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling with straw return promoted a deeper, coarser root system.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The integration of subsoiling with straw return (STA) was particularly effective, enhancing subsoil fertility and promoting a deeper, coarser root system”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
STA increased subsoil root length density by 33%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“STA increased root length density by 33 %, root weight density by 28 %, and root diameter by 41 % in the subsoil (40–60 cm soil)”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
STA increased subsoil root weight density by 28%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“STA increased root length density by 33 %, root weight density by 28 %, and root diameter by 41 % in the subsoil (40–60 cm soil)”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
STA increased subsoil root diameter by 41%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“STA increased root length density by 33 %, root weight density by 28 %, and root diameter by 41 % in the subsoil (40–60 cm soil)”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Optimized root architecture improved access to deep soil water and nutrients.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This optimized RSA improved access to deep soil water and nutrients”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling with straw return increased grain yield by 4.7% relative to plough tillage with straw return.
- Treatment
- Subsoiling with straw returnt0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 4.7 %e0
- Comparator
- plough tillage with straw returne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 4.7 % increase in grain yield and a 3.8 % increase in WP compared to plough tillage with straw return”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling with straw return increased water productivity by 3.8% relative to plough tillage with straw return.
- Treatment
- Subsoiling with straw returnt0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 3.8 %e0
- Comparator
- plough tillage with straw returne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 4.7 % increase in grain yield and a 3.8 % increase in WP compared to plough tillage with straw return”
t0“Subsoiling with straw return optimizes the maize root system and water productivity”
The same questions in other papers
organic · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →organic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
125 papers more in this group
See all 129 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 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
- 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.