Abstract
Combining low‐input systems with conservation tillage may be feasible for field crops under northeastern conditions. This study compared the effects of herbicide‐free (HF), organic (ORG), conventional (CONV), and herbicide‐tolerant (GM) cropping systems applied to three 20 yr‐old tillage treatments (MP, moldboard plow; CP, chisel plow; NT, no‐till) on weed biomass and crop productivity in a 4‐yr barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)–red clover ( Trifolium pratense L.)–corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotation. Barley yield (4.5 Mg ha –1 ), and red clover forage yield (two cuts: 5.3 Mg ha –1 ) were similar across treatments. With MP and CP tillage, silage corn yield for CONV and GM systems (15 Mg ha –1 ) was 25% greater than for HF and ORG (11 Mg ha –1 ), whereas HF‐NT and ORG‐NT systems produced no harvestable yield. Soybean yield for HF‐MP and ORG‐MP systems was similar to that for CONV and GM (2.4 Mg ha –1 ), whereas yield in for the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT was half or less than for other treatments. Some form of primary tillage (CP or MP) was needed in corn and soybean to achieve adequate weed control and yield in the ORG and HF systems. Midseason weed proportion of total biomass was greater in the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT, and provided good yield prediction in corn ( R 2 = 0.74) and soybean ( R 2 = 0.84). Nutrient availability appeared adequate in corn following N 2 –fixing red clover but limiting in NT and CP for soybean following corn. Improving crop sequence, fertilization, and weed management will be key to the adoption of low‐input systems using conservation tillage practices in cool, humid climates.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Barley yield was similar across treatments at 4.5 Mg ha –1.
- Taxon
- Barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree0 - Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- 4.5 Mg ha –1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Barley yield (4.5 Mg ha –1 ), and red clover forage yield (two cuts: 5.3 Mg ha –1 ) were similar across treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Red clover forage yield was similar across treatments at 5.3 Mg ha –1.
- Taxon
- red clover
Trifolium pratensee0 - Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- forage yielde0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- 5.3 Mg ha –1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“red clover forage yield (two cuts: 5.3 Mg ha –1 ) were similar across treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Under MP and CP tillage, CONV and GM corn silage yield was 25% greater than HF and ORG.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- CONV and GM systemse0
- Outcome
- silage corn yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- With MP and CP tillagee0
- Comparator
- HF and ORGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With MP and CP tillage, silage corn yield for CONV and GM systems (15 Mg ha –1 ) was 25% greater than for HF and ORG (11 Mg ha –1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
HF-NT produced no harvestable corn silage yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- HF‐NTe0
- Outcome
- no harvestable yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HF‐NT and ORG‐NT systems produced no harvestable yield”
e1“silage corn yield”
Claim · model-written summary
ORG-NT produced no harvestable corn silage yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- ORG‐NTe0
- Outcome
- no harvestable yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HF‐NT and ORG‐NT systems produced no harvestable yield”
e1“silage corn yield”
Claim · model-written summary
HF-MP soybean yield was similar to CONV and GM.
- Taxon
- Soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- HF‐MPe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- 2.4 Mg ha –1e0
- Comparator
- CONV and GMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soybean yield for HF‐MP and ORG‐MP systems was similar to that for CONV and GM (2.4 Mg ha –1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
ORG-MP soybean yield was similar to CONV and GM.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- ORG‐MPe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- 2.4 Mg ha –1e0
- Comparator
- CONV and GMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soybean yield for HF‐MP and ORG‐MP systems was similar to that for CONV and GM (2.4 Mg ha –1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield under HF with CP or NT was half or less than other treatments.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- HFe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- half or lesse0
- Qualifier
- CP and NTe0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield in for the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT was half or less than for other treatments”
e1“Soybean yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield under ORG with CP or NT was half or less than other treatments.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- ORGe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- half or lesse0
- Qualifier
- CP and NTe0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield in for the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT was half or less than for other treatments”
e1“Soybean yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Midseason weed proportion of biomass was greater under HF and ORG with CP and NT.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- HF and ORG systems with CP and NTe0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- Midseason weed proportion of total biomasse0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Midseason weed proportion of total biomass was greater in the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Midseason weed proportion predicted corn yield with R² = 0.74.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- yield prediction in corne0
- Value
- 0.74e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Midseason weed proportion of total biomass was greater in the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT, and provided good yield prediction in corn ( R 2 = 0.74)”
Claim · model-written summary
Midseason weed proportion predicted soybean yield with R² = 0.84.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- yield predictione0
- Value
- 0.84e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Midseason weed proportion of total biomass was greater in the HF and ORG systems with CP and NT, and provided good yield prediction in corn ( R 2 = 0.74) and soybean ( R 2 = 0.84)”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn nutrient availability after red clover appeared adequate.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- Nutrient availabilitye0
- Qualifier
- following N 2 –fixing red clovere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nutrient availability appeared adequate in corn following N 2 –fixing red clover”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean nutrient availability after corn appeared limiting under NT and CP.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- Nutrient availabilitye1
- Qualifier
- NT and CPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“limiting in NT and CP for soybean following corn”
e1“Nutrient availability appeared adequate in corn following N 2 –fixing red clover but limiting in NT and CP for soybean following corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Primary tillage was needed for adequate weed control and yield in organic and herbicide-free corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- primary tillage (CP or MP) was needede0
- Qualifier
- adequate weed control and yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Some form of primary tillage (CP or MP) was needed in corn and soybean to achieve adequate weed control and yield in the ORG and HF systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Primary tillage was needed for adequate weed control and yield in organic and herbicide-free soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- primary tillage (CP or MP) was needede0
- Qualifier
- adequate weed control and yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Some form of primary tillage (CP or MP) was needed in corn and soybean to achieve adequate weed control and yield in the ORG and HF systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend improving sequence, fertilization and weed management for low-input conservation tillage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Outcome
- Improving crop sequence, fertilization, and weed managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Improving crop sequence, fertilization, and weed management will be key to the adoption of low‐input systems using conservation tillage practices”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →cultivation system · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →transgenic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →tillage · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 65 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
107 papers more in this group
See all 111 papers →herbicide · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 360 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
402 papers more in this group
See all 406 papers →herbicide · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 322 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
456 papers more in this group
See all 460 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.