tillage · Phenology · Zea mays (maize)
19 claims from these papers; 4 citations between them.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
4 citations between these papers: 4 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 5
Zero-tillage and corn production in eastern Canada · 1981
- positive
Tillage Effects on Corn Response to Starter Fertilizer · 2003
- positive
- positive
THE INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE PRACTICES ON THE SOIL MOISTURE AND NITROGEN STATUS · 2012
- positive
- positive
Long-term no-tillage enhanced maize yield and potassium use efficiency under spring drought year · 2022
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 10
THE RESPONSE OF EIGHT CORN (Zea mays L.) HYBRIDS TO ZERO TILLAGE IN MANITOBA · 1983
- negative
- negative
Evaluation of Corn Growth and Productivity with Three Conservation Tillage Systems1 · 1986
- negative
INEXPENSIVE NO-TILL ATTACHMENT FOR A TWO-ROW CORN PLANTER · 1986
- no effect
Corn‐Hybrid Performance under Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems after Thinning1 · 1987
- negative
Planting Date and Tillage Effects on Corn Following Corn1 · 1987
- negative
Seed Quality Effect on Corn Performance under Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems · 1991
- negative
No‐Till vs. Conventional Tillage for Late‐Planted Corn following Hay Harvest · 1992
- negative
Tillage Effects on Soil Temperature, Shoot Dry Matter Accumulation and Corn Grain Yield · 1995
- negative
Yield and Nitrogen Content of Corn under Different Tillage Practices · 1999
- negative
- negative
- no effect
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.