Abstract
Rainfed crop production in northern China is constrained by low and variable rainfall. This study explored the effects of tillage and nutrient management practices on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water use efficiency (WUE), at Shouyang Dryland Farming Experimental Station in northern China during 2003-2008. The experiment was set-up using a split-plot design with 3 tillage methods as main treatments: conventional, reduced (till with crop residue incoperated in fall but no-till in spring), and no-till. Sub-treatments were 3 NP fertilizer rates: 105-46, 179-78 and 210-92 kg N and P ha. -1 Maize grain yields were greatly influenced by the amount of growing season rainfall, and by soil water contents at sowing. Mean grain yields over the 6-year period in response to tillage treatments were 5604, 5347 and 5185 kg ha, under reduced, no-till and conventional tillage, respectively. Mean WUE was 13.7, 13.6 and 12.6 kg ha mm under reduced, no-till, and conventional tillage, respectively. Mean soil water contents at sowing and at harvest were significantly influenced by tillage treatments. At harvest time, the no-till treatment had ~8-12% more water in the soil than the conventional and reduced tillage treatments. Under conventional tillage, grain yields increased with NP fertilizer application rates. However, under reduced tillage, grain yields were highest with lowest NP fertilizer application rate. In conclusion, grain yields and WUE were highest under reduced tillage at modest NP fertilizer application rates of 105 kg N and 46 kg P per ha. No-till increased soil water storage by 8-12% and improved WUE compared to conventional tillage.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yields were influenced by growing season rainfall.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yields were greatly influenced by the amount of growing season rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yields were influenced by soil water content at sowing.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yields were greatly influenced by the amount of growing season rainfall, and by soil water contents at sowing”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage produced a mean maize grain yield of 5604 kg ha over six years.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean grain yields over the 6-year period in response to tillage treatments were 5604, 5347 and 5185 kg ha, under reduced, no-till and conventional tillage, respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till produced a mean maize grain yield of 5347 kg ha over six years.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean grain yields over the 6-year period in response to tillage treatments were 5604, 5347 and 5185 kg ha, under reduced, no-till and conventional tillage, respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage produced a mean maize grain yield of 5185 kg ha over six years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean grain yields over the 6-year period in response to tillage treatments were 5604, 5347 and 5185 kg ha, under reduced, no-till and conventional tillage, respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean maize WUE was 13.7 kg ha mm under reduced tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean WUE was 13.7, 13.6 and 12.6 kg ha mm under reduced, no-till, and conventional tillage, respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean maize WUE was 13.6 kg ha mm under no-till.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean WUE was 13.7, 13.6 and 12.6 kg ha mm under reduced, no-till, and conventional tillage, respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean maize WUE was 12.6 kg ha mm under conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean WUE was 13.7, 13.6 and 12.6 kg ha mm under reduced, no-till, and conventional tillage, respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage significantly influenced soil water content at sowing and harvest.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean soil water contents at sowing and at harvest were significantly influenced by tillage treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till left about 8–12% more soil water at harvest than conventional and reduced tillage.
- Treatment
- no-till treatmente0
- Outcome
- water in the soile0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- ~8-12%e0
- Qualifier
- At harvest timee0
- Comparator
- conventional and reduced tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At harvest time, the no-till treatment had ~8-12% more water in the soil than the conventional and reduced tillage treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conventional tillage, maize grain yield increased with NP fertilizer application rate.
- Treatment
- NP fertilizer application ratese0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- Under conventional tillagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under conventional tillage, grain yields increased with NP fertilizer application rates”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under reduced tillage, maize grain yield was highest at the lowest NP fertilizer rate.
- Treatment
- lowest NP fertilizer application ratee0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- under reduced tillagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under reduced tillage, grain yields were highest with lowest NP fertilizer application rate”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage with modest NP fertilizer rates gave the highest grain yields and WUE.
- Treatment
- reduced tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yields and WUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- modest NP fertilizer application rates of 105 kg N and 46 kg P per hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yields and WUE were highest under reduced tillage at modest NP fertilizer application rates of 105 kg N and 46 kg P per ha”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till improved WUE relative to conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-till increased soil water storage by 8-12% and improved WUE compared to conventional tillage”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other 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 →nanoparticle · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
214 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
229 papers more in this group
See all 233 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 →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.