Abstract
Limited information is available regarding tillage effects on seasonal N accumulation in sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], especially where labeled N was used. Tillage effects on fertilizer N accumulation in 1985 and 1986 were evaluated in a field study on a Weswood silt loam (Fine‐silty, mixed, thermic Fluventic Ustochrept) near College Station, TX. Nitrogen‐15 depleted NH 4 NO 3 (150 kg N ha −1 ) was surface broadcast or subsurface banded under no‐tillage or conventional tillage management to monitor fertilizer N accumulation in sorghum at boot, anthesis, soft dough, and harvest. Both years, most tillage effects on fertilizer N accumulation were manifested early in the season. The tillage‐by‐placement interaction was not significant for N uptake parameters, indicating a similar N accumulation response to placement for both tillage systems. Most fertilizer N uptake occurred by anthesis (84% averaged across years). Fertilizer N accumulation in no‐tillage sorghum was generally higher throughout the 1985 season, resulting in significantly greater fertilizer N recovery by harvest. This effect occurred even though yields and total N accumulations for both tillage systems were similar. No tillage difference in whole plant fertilizer N accumulation at harvest was observed in 1986. No‐tillage delayed early development of sorghum approximately 2 wk in 1986. Fertilizer N accumulation in leaves was less with conventional tillage than no‐tillage early in the 1986 season. Leaf fertilizer N did not differ between tillage treatments after anthesis when vegetative demand declined. Conventional tillage culms contained more fertilizer N thoughout the season. Tillage effects on panicle fertilizer N accumulation coincided with periods of high N requirement, such as at soft dough, when no‐tillage was higher. The plant growth delay for no‐tillage sorghum in 1986 may have subjected the crop to additional moisture or temperature stress resulting in a tillage by fertilizer placement interaction, whereby banded treatments produced more grain than broadcast in no‐tillage plots. Yields for banded no‐tillage sorghum did not differ from those for either placement treatment in conventional tillage 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Most tillage effects on fertilizer nitrogen accumulation appeared early in both years.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both years, most tillage effects on fertilizer N accumulation were manifested early in the season”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and placement did not interact significantly for nitrogen uptake.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The tillage‐by‐placement interaction was not significant for N uptake parameters”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
By anthesis, sorghum had taken up 84% of fertilizer nitrogen on average.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most fertilizer N uptake occurred by anthesis (84% averaged across years)”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage generally increased fertilizer nitrogen accumulation throughout 1985.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertilizer N accumulation in no‐tillage sorghum was generally higher throughout the 1985 season”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage significantly increased fertilizer nitrogen recovery by harvest in 1985.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulting in significantly greater fertilizer N recovery by harvest”
t0“Sorghum”
e1“no‐tillage sorghum was generally higher throughout the 1985 season”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and total nitrogen accumulation were similar across tillage systems in 1985.
- Treatment
- tillage systemse0
- Outcome
- yields and total N accumulationse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- both tillage systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yields and total N accumulations for both tillage systems were similar”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-plant fertilizer nitrogen accumulation at harvest showed no tillage difference in 1986.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage difference in whole plant fertilizer N accumulation at harvest was observed in 1986”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage delayed early sorghum development by approximately two weeks in 1986.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage delayed early development of sorghum approximately 2 wk in 1986”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage lowered leaf fertilizer nitrogen early in 1986 versus no tillage.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- Fertilizer N accumulation in leavese0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- no‐tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertilizer N accumulation in leaves was less with conventional tillage than no‐tillage early in the 1986 season”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf fertilizer nitrogen did not differ after anthesis between tillage treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf fertilizer N did not differ between tillage treatments after anthesis”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage culms contained more fertilizer nitrogen throughout the season.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage culms contained more fertilizer N thoughout the season”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
At soft dough, panicle fertilizer nitrogen accumulation was higher with no tillage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tillage effects on panicle fertilizer N accumulation coincided with periods of high N requirement, such as at soft dough, when no‐tillage was higher”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Banded placement produced more grain than broadcast under no tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“banded treatments produced more grain than broadcast in no‐tillage plots”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Banded no-tillage yields did not differ from either conventional-tillage placement.
- Treatment
- banded no‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- either placement treatment in conventional tillage plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields for banded no‐tillage sorghum did not differ from those for either placement treatment in conventional tillage plots”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · SorghumPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →tillage · growth · SorghumPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.