Paper · 1972 · Agronomy Journal

Comparative Yield and Fertilizer Efficiency of No‐tillage and Conventionally Tilled Corn1

W. W. Moschler; G. M. Shear; D. C. Martens; et al.

6
claims
11
verbatim quotes
57
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Surface application of fertilizer for no‐tillage ( Zea mays L.) corn is probably the most convenient method. The relative efficiency of fertilizer applied in this manner has been undetermined, however. Field experiments on three soil types in Virginia suggest that fertilizer efficiency for no‐tillage corn with surface application was higher than for conventionally tilled corn with an equal disked‐in application. No‐tillage resulted in a 9‐year average yield increase of 25.6% on Lodi silt loam, a 6‐year average increase of 13.7% on Davidson clay loam, and a 5‐year average increase of 39.0% on Cecil clay loam. In addition to increased yields, larger amounts of residual N, P, and K, as well as organic matter, were found in no‐tillage soil in several cases.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surface-applied fertilizer was more efficient for no-tillage corn than an equal disked-in application under conventional tillage.

Treatment
no‐tillage corn with surface applicatione0
Outcome
fertilizer efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
conventionally tilled corn with an equal disked‐in applicatione0

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

“fertilizer efficiency for no‐tillage corn with surface application was higher than for conventionally tilled corn with an equal disked‐in application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 274–424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased average corn yield by 25.6% on Lodi silt loam.

Treatment
No‐tillagee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
25.6%e0
Setting
Lodi silt loame0

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

“No‐tillage resulted in a 9‐year average yield increase of 25.6% on Lodi silt loam”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 425–506 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased average corn yield by 13.7% on Davidson clay loam.

Treatment
No‐tillagee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
13.7%e0
Setting
Davidson clay loame0

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

“No‐tillage resulted in a 9‐year average yield increase of 25.6% on Lodi silt loam, a 6‐year average increase of 13.7% on Davidson clay loam”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 425–564 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased average corn yield by 39.0% on Cecil clay loam.

Treatment
No‐tillagee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
39.0%e0
Setting
Cecil clay loame0

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

“No‐tillage resulted in a 9‐year average yield increase of 25.6% on Lodi silt loam, a 6‐year average increase of 13.7% on Davidson clay loam, and a 5‐year average increase of 39.0% on Cecil clay loam.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 425–624 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage soil had larger residual nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium amounts in several cases.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
residual N, P, and Ke0
Direction
largere0
Qualifier
in several casese0

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

“larger amounts of residual N, P, and K, as well as organic matter, were found in no‐tillage soil in several cases.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 658–772 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage soil had more organic matter in several cases.

Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Outcome
organic mattere0
Direction
largere0
Qualifier
in several casese0

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

“larger amounts of residual N, P, and K, as well as organic matter, were found in no‐tillage soil in several cases.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 658–772 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–88 · show in text ↑

Zea mays subsp. mays · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 19 positive, 2 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

127 papers: 93 positive, 34 negative or no effect

92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. negative

123 papers more in this group

See all 127 papers →

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

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

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. 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.