Paper · 1986 · Soil Science Society of America Journal

Wheat Residue Management Effects on Soil Water Storage and Corn Production

Paul W. Unger

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
38
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Corn ( Zea mays L.) grown in the semiarid southern Great Plains usually is irrigated fully because yields decline if water stress occurs at any time during the growing season, but the groundwater supply for irrigation is being depleted. To decrease the dependence of corn production on the declining groundwater supply, practices must be developed to improve the storage and use of precipitation. This study was conducted to determine the effects of residue management practices after wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) on precipitation (and preplant irrigation) storage during fallow; corn growth, yield, and seed quality; and water use and use efficiency by corn. The soil was Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, thermic Torrertic Paleustolls). Because of high initial water contents at the start of fallow in 1982, relatively little water was stored from precipitation during the 1982 to 1983 fallow. For the 1983 to 1984 fallow, water storage was higher with disk and sweep tillage than with no‐tillage because the disk and sweep plots received a preplant irrigation to wet the tillage‐loosened soil. Water use by corn was not affected significantly by tillage in 1983, but was significantly lower with no‐tillage than with disk or sweep tillage in 1984. Corn grain yields were lowest with a no‐tillage standing residue treatment in 1983 due to N deficiency. In 1984, yields were not affected significantly by tillage, but avg 0.29 Mg/ha higher on fertilized than on nonfertilized low‐residue plots and 2.0 Mg/ha higher on fertilized than on nonfertilized high‐residue plots. Kernel weight (mg/kernel) and kernel test weight were affected significantly by tillage in 1983, but not in 1984. The study showed that crop residues can be managed to use a greater proportion of precipitation for producing corn, thus reducing the dependence on irrigation. However, soil fertility must be adequate for obtaining high yields, especially on high‐residue plots.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Little precipitation water was stored in the 1982–1983 fallow due to high initial water content.

Outcome
water was stored from precipitatione0
Direction
relatively littlee0
Qualifier
high initial water contentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Because of high initial water contents at the start of fallow in 1982, relatively little water was stored from precipitation during the 1982 to 1983 fallow.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 747–903 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water storage was higher under disk and sweep tillage than no-tillage in 1983–1984.

Treatment
disk and sweep tillagee0
Outcome
water storagee0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
preplant irrigatione0
Comparator
no‐tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For the 1983 to 1984 fallow, water storage was higher with disk and sweep tillage than with no‐tillage because the disk and sweep plots received a preplant irrigation to wet the tillage‐loosened soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 904–1104 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage did not significantly affect corn water use in 1983.

Treatment
tillagee0
Outcome
Water usee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Water use by corn was not affected significantly by tillage in 1983”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1172 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage lowered corn water use versus disk or sweep tillage in 1984.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
Water usee1
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
disk or sweep tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but was significantly lower with no‐tillage than with disk or sweep tillage in 1984.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1174–1258 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“Water use by corn was not affected significantly by tillage in 1983”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1172 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage standing residue produced the lowest corn grain yield in 1983 due to N deficiency.

Treatment
no‐tillage standing residue treatmente0
Outcome
grain yieldse0
Direction
loweste0
Qualifier
N deficiencye0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Corn grain yields were lowest with a no‐tillage standing residue treatment in 1983 due to N deficiency.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1259–1362 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage did not significantly affect yield in 1984.

Treatment
tillagee0
Outcome
yieldse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In 1984, yields were not affected significantly by tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1363–1421 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization raised corn yield 0.29 Mg/ha on low-residue plots.

Treatment
fertilizede0
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
highere0
Value
0.29 Mg/hae0
Qualifier
low‐residue plotse0
Comparator
nonfertilizede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but avg 0.29 Mg/ha higher on fertilized than on nonfertilized low‐residue plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1423–1502 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“In 1984, yields were not affected significantly by tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1363–1421 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization raised corn yield 2.0 Mg/ha on high-residue plots.

Treatment
fertilizede0
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
highere0
Value
2.0 Mg/hae0
Qualifier
high‐residue plotse0
Comparator
nonfertilizede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“and 2.0 Mg/ha higher on fertilized than on nonfertilized high‐residue plots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1579 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“In 1984, yields were not affected significantly by tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1363–1421 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage significantly affected kernel weight and test weight in 1983.

Treatment
tillagee0
Outcome
Kernel weight (mg/kernel) and kernel test weighte0
Qualifier
1983e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Kernel weight (mg/kernel) and kernel test weight were affected significantly by tillage in 1983, but not in 1984.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1580–1693 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage did not significantly affect kernel weight and test weight in 1984.

Treatment
tillagee0
Outcome
Kernel weight (mg/kernel) and kernel test weighte0
Qualifier
1984e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Kernel weight (mg/kernel) and kernel test weight were affected significantly by tillage in 1983, but not in 1984.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1580–1693 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Residue management can shift corn production toward precipitation and reduce irrigation dependence.

Outcome
use a greater proportion of precipitation for producing corne0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The study showed that crop residues can be managed to use a greater proportion of precipitation for producing corn, thus reducing the dependence on irrigation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1694–1853 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Adequate soil fertility is needed for high yields, especially with high residue.

Outcome
soil fertility must be adequate for obtaining high yieldse0
Qualifier
high‐residue plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, soil fertility must be adequate for obtaining high yields, especially on high‐residue plots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1854–1955 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 59–63 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

3,908 papers: 3,485 positive, 423 negative or no effect

3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

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.