Abstract
Abstract The use of no‐till practices for the culture of maize ( Zea mays L.) is increasing because it reduces time, fuel, and labor requirements for land preparation. Studies have indicated that minimum tillage practices can slow maize growth and reduce plant stand density and grain yield. Little information is available on hybrid adaptation to these tillage systems. Field experiments were conducted to determine how grain yield and plant density (plants/ha) were affected by conventional (plowing followed by discing) vs. no‐till practices in commercial maize hybrids. Four locations in Maryland were used, including sites on the coastal plain (Typic Hapludult and Aquic Hapludult) and piedmont (Typic Hapludalf). The split‐plot experiment had tillage (conventional vs. no‐till) as the main plots and commercial maize hybrids, varying in cold tolerance and maturity, as the subplots. Six hybrids were grown in 1982 and 12 hybrids were grown in 1983 and 1984. The hybrid × tillage method interaction was not significant for plant density and was inconsequential for grain yield except at the Beltsville location. No one hybrid performed consistently better under conventional tillage. In 1982 tillage did not significantly affect grain yield; however, in 1983 grain yields for the no‐till practice were 17 to 24% greater than yields for conventional tillage at three of the four locations. In 1984 one location showed a 19% increase in yield under no‐till. Changes in plants/ha due to tillage ranged from a 22% decrease to a 4% increase under no‐till. The analysis of covariance between grain yield and plants per hectare indicated that there was no significant correlation between these parameters. These results indicated that selection for genetic traits to improve grain yield under no‐till practices may not be necessary for this geographical area. These commercial maize hybrids would produce similar amounts of grain under either tillage practice.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid by tillage interaction was not significant for plant density.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The hybrid × tillage method interaction was not significant for plant density”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid by tillage interaction was inconsequential for grain yield except at Beltsville.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was inconsequential for grain yield except at the Beltsville location”
e1“The hybrid × tillage method interaction”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
No hybrid consistently performed better under conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- performed consistently bettere0
- Direction
- No one hybrid performed consistently bettere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No one hybrid performed consistently better under conventional tillage.”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1982 tillage did not significantly affect grain yield.
- Treatment
- no‐till practicese1
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte0
- Qualifier
- 1982e0
- Comparator
- conventionale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1982 tillage did not significantly affect grain yield”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
e1“conventional (plowing followed by discing) vs. no‐till practices”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1983 no‐till grain yield exceeded conventional yield by 17 to 24% at three locations.
- Treatment
- no‐till practicee0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 17 to 24%e0
- Qualifier
- three of the four locationse0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in 1983 grain yields for the no‐till practice were 17 to 24% greater than yields for conventional tillage at three of the four locations”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1984 no‐till increased yield by 19% at one location.
- Treatment
- no‐tille0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Qualifier
- one locatione0
- Comparator
- conventionale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1984 one location showed a 19% increase in yield under no‐till.”
e1“conventional (plowing followed by discing) vs. no‐till practices”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
No‐till changes in plants per hectare ranged from a 22% decrease to a 4% increase.
- Treatment
- no‐tille0
- Outcome
- plants/hae0
- Direction
- decrease to a 4% increasee0
- Value
- 22% decrease to a 4% increasee0
- Comparator
- conventionale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes in plants/ha due to tillage ranged from a 22% decrease to a 4% increase under no‐till.”
e1“conventional (plowing followed by discing) vs. no‐till practices”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield and plants per hectare were not significantly correlated.
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant correlation between these parameters”
e1“between grain yield and plants per hectare”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that selecting genetic traits for no‐till yield may be unnecessary in this area.
- Outcome
- selection for genetic traits to improve grain yield under no‐till practicese0
- Qualifier
- may not be necessary for this geographical areae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“selection for genetic traits to improve grain yield under no‐till practices may not be necessary for this geographical area”
t0“Maize Hybrids”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded these hybrids would produce similar grain under either tillage practice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These commercial maize hybrids would produce similar amounts of grain under either tillage practice.”
The same questions in other 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
- positive
- positive
- 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.