Abstract
For smooth and wide application of conservation agriculture (CA), remaining uncertainties about its impacts on crop yield need to be reduced. Based on previous field experiments in China, a meta-analysis was performed to quantify the actual impacts of CA practices (NT: no/reduced-tillage only, CTSR: conventional tillage with straw retention, NTSR: NT with straw retention) on crop yields as compared to conventional tillage without straw retention (CT). Although CA practices increased crop yield by 4.6% on average, there were large variations in their impacts. For each CA practice, CTSR and NTSR significantly increased crop yield by 4.9% and 6.3%, respectively, compared to CT. However, no significant effect was found for NT. Among ecological areas, significant positive effects of CA practices were found in areas with an annual precipitation below 600 mm. Similar effects were found in areas with annual mean air temperature above 5 °C. For cropping regions, CA increased crop yield by 6.4% and 5.5% compared to CT in Northwest and South China, respectively, whereas no significant effects were found in the North China and Northeast China regions. Among crops, the positive effects of CA practices were significantly higher in maize (7.5%) and rice (4.1%) than in wheat (2.9%). NT likely decreased wheat yield. Our results indicate that there are great differences in the impacts of CA practices on crop yield, owing to regional variation in climate and crop types. CA will most likely increase maize yield but reduce wheat yield. It is strongly recommended to apply CA with crop straw retention in maize cropping areas and seasons with a warm and dry climate pattern.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased average crop yield by 4.6%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“CA practices increased crop yield by 4.6% on average”
Claim · model-written summary
CTSR increased crop yield by 4.9% versus CT.
Verbatim
e0“CTSR and NTSR significantly increased crop yield by 4.9% and 6.3%, respectively, compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSR increased crop yield by 6.3% versus CT.
Verbatim
e0“CTSR and NTSR significantly increased crop yield by 4.9% and 6.3%, respectively, compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
NT had no significant crop-yield effect.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“no significant effect was found for NT”
t0“crop yield”
e1“as compared to conventional tillage without straw retention (CT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased crop yield significantly in areas with precipitation below 600 mm.
- Taxon
- cropt0
- Treatment
- CA practicese0
- Outcome
- crop yieldt0
- Direction
- positive effectse0
- Qualifier
- annual precipitation below 600 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“significant positive effects of CA practices were found in areas with an annual precipitation below 600 mm”
t0“crop yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture had similar positive effects where annual mean air temperature exceeded 5 °C.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Similar effects were found in areas with annual mean air temperature above 5 °C”
t0“crop yield”
e1“CA practices (NT: no/reduced-tillage only”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased crop yield 6.4% in Northwest China versus CT.
Verbatim
e0“CA increased crop yield by 6.4% and 5.5% compared to CT in Northwest and South China, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased crop yield 5.5% in South China versus CT.
Verbatim
e0“CA increased crop yield by 6.4% and 5.5% compared to CT in Northwest and South China, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture had no significant crop-yield effect in North China.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“no significant effects were found in the North China and Northeast China regions”
t0“crop yield”
e1“CA practices (NT: no/reduced-tillage only”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture had no significant crop-yield effect in Northeast China.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“no significant effects were found in the North China and Northeast China regions”
t0“crop yield”
e1“CA practices (NT: no/reduced-tillage only”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased maize yield by 7.5%.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the positive effects of CA practices were significantly higher in maize (7.5%) and rice (4.1%) than in wheat (2.9%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased rice yield by 4.1%.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- CA practicese0
- Outcome
- positive effectse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4.1%e0
- Comparator
- wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the positive effects of CA practices were significantly higher in maize (7.5%) and rice (4.1%) than in wheat (2.9%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The estimated conservation agriculture effect for wheat was 2.9%.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- CA practicese0
- Outcome
- positive effectse0
- Value
- 2.9%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the positive effects of CA practices were significantly higher in maize (7.5%) and rice (4.1%) than in wheat (2.9%)”
Claim · model-written summary
NT likely decreased wheat yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT likely decreased wheat yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend conservation agriculture with straw retention in maize cropping areas during warm, dry seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It is strongly recommended to apply CA with crop straw retention in maize cropping areas and seasons with a warm and dry climate pattern”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.