Abstract
Abstract This study was conducted to provide needed data comparing corn ( Zea mays L.) growth and productivity for several conservation tillage (CT) systems. Such data will provide necessary information to better evaluate the economical potential of CT systems in the Northern Corn Belt. The tillage systems used in this study were till‐plant (TP), chisel (CH), no‐till (NT), and conventional (CN) tillage. The study was conducted on a Griswold silt loam soil (fine‐loam, mixed, mesic Typic Argiudoll) at Arlington, WI, and a Plainfield loamy sand soil (sandy, mixed, mesic Typic Udipsamment) at Hancock, WI, over a 3‐yr period. Final plant emergence and growth and yield parameters were measured. The final plant emergence was higher with the CT systems compared to CN at Arlington, while the final plant emergence of the NT system was lower than other tillage systems at Hancock. Plant height, leaf area, and dry matter per plant early in the growing season, for both locations ranked: CN > TP ≷ CH > NT, and in most cases were significantly different. However, at the end of the growing season, these growth parameters were not significantly different. Days from planting to 50% silking for the NT system were significantly delayed by 2 to 3 and 4 days at Arlington and Hancock, respectively. No‐till had the highest grain moisture content. Grain yields with CT systems were equal to or greater than CN tillage at both locations. No‐till grain yield at Hancock was 18% greater than CN when rainfall was below normal in 1983. Three‐year grain yield averages for the silt loam soil were 8.75,8.78,8.97, and 8.49 Mg ha 1 for CN, TP, CH, and NT, respectively. Three‐year grain yield averages for the loamy sand soil were 6.48, 6.48, 6.44, and 6.79 Mg ha 1 for CN, TP, CH, and NT, respectively. The results from this study showed no serious growth and yield reductions with CT systems compared to CN tillage in the Northern Corn Belt.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Final plant emergence was higher with conservation tillage systems than with conventional tillage at Arlington.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- CT systemse1
- Outcome
- final plant emergencee1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- CNe1
- Setting
- Arlingtone1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e1“The final plant emergence was higher with the CT systems compared to CN at Arlington”
Claim · model-written summary
Final plant emergence under no-till was lower than under other tillage systems at Hancock.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- NT systeme2
- Outcome
- final plant emergencee2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Comparator
- other tillage systemse2
- Setting
- Hancocke2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e2“the final plant emergence of the NT system was lower than other tillage systems at Hancock”
Claim · model-written summary
Early-season plant height, leaf area and dry matter per plant ranked CN > TP ≷ CH > NT, and were mostly significantly different.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- Plant height, leaf area, and dry matter per plante3
- Direction
- CN > TP ≷ CH > NTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e3“Plant height, leaf area, and dry matter per plant early in the growing season, for both locations ranked: CN > TP ≷ CH > NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth parameters at the end of the growing season did not differ significantly among tillage systems.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- growth parameterse4
- Qualifier
- at the end of the growing seasone4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e4“at the end of the growing season, these growth parameters were not significantly different”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till significantly delayed days from planting to 50% silking by 2 to 3 days at Arlington and 4 days at Hancock.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- NT systeme5
- Outcome
- Days from planting to 50% silkinge5
- Direction
- significantly delayede5
- Value
- 2 to 3 and 4 dayse5
- Setting
- Arlington and Hancocke5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e5“Days from planting to 50% silking for the NT system were significantly delayed by 2 to 3 and 4 days at Arlington and Hancock, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till had the highest grain moisture content.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- No‐tille6
- Outcome
- grain moisture contente6
- Direction
- higheste6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e6“No‐till had the highest grain moisture content”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yields with conservation tillage were equal to or greater than conventional tillage at both locations.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- CT systemse7
- Outcome
- Grain yieldse7
- Direction
- equal to or greatere7
- Comparator
- CN tillagee7
- Setting
- both locationse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e7“Grain yields with CT systems were equal to or greater than CN tillage at both locations”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till grain yield at Hancock was 18% greater than conventional tillage in a below-normal rainfall year.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- No‐tille1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 18%e1
- Qualifier
- when rainfall was below normal in 1983e1
- Comparator
- CNe1
- Setting
- Hancocke1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e1“No‐till grain yield at Hancock was 18% greater than CN when rainfall was below normal in 1983”
Claim · model-written summary
Three-year grain yield averages on the silt loam soil were 8.75, 8.78, 8.97 and 8.49 Mg ha-1 for CN, TP, CH and NT.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- grain yield averagese1
- Value
- 8.75,8.78,8.97, and 8.49 Mg ha 1e1
- Comparator
- CN, TP, CH, and NTe1
- Setting
- silt loam soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e1“grain yield averages for the silt loam soil were 8.75,8.78,8.97, and 8.49 Mg ha 1 for CN, TP, CH, and NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Three-year grain yield averages on the loamy sand soil were 6.48, 6.48, 6.44 and 6.79 Mg ha-1 for CN, TP, CH and NT.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- grain yield averagese1
- Value
- 6.48, 6.48, 6.44, and 6.79 Mg ha 1e1
- Comparator
- CN, TP, CH, and NTe1
- Setting
- loamy sand soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e1“grain yield averages for the loamy sand soil were 6.48, 6.48, 6.44, and 6.79 Mg ha 1 for CN, TP, CH, and NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage caused no serious growth and yield reductions compared with conventional tillage in the Northern Corn Belt.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- CT systemse1
- Outcome
- growth and yielde1
- Direction
- no serious growth and yield reductionse1
- Comparator
- CN tillagee1
- Setting
- Northern Corn Belte1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Corn Growth and Productivity”
e1“The results from this study showed no serious growth and yield reductions with CT systems compared to CN tillage in the Northern Corn Belt”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · phenology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
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.