Abstract
Experiments were carried out in the soil conditions (vertic chernozem) of the Didactic Station from Banats University of Agricultural Sci ences and Veterinary Medicine - Timioara (Timicounty) between 2003-2005. We used two soil-working methods: conventionally technology and no-tillage technology. The experimental device for studies upon the no-ti llage influence was organized as a stationary experience with the following variants: V1 (control): tillage with the plough with a mould bo ard + disk harrow V2: tillage with the disk harrow - two times V3: tillage with the combined rotating harrow V4: tillage with the disk harrow + the combined rotat ing harrow V5: tillage with the disk harrow + soil processing wi th a vibrocultor V6: no tillage On the vertic chernozem from D.S. Timisoara, the determinations carried out upon fuel intake per total technology show certain diffe rences between the variants used. So, under the conditions provided by the classic system, we h ave used 111,10 l/ha (100%) compared to 92,10-98,10 l/ha (82,90-88,30%) in the variants wit h minimal tillage and 80,70 l/ha (72,62%) in the mo tillage variant. The fuel intake analyzed in comparison with the yie ld achieved has the following values: 14,7 l/t under the classic system, 13,2-13, 8 l/t in the variants with minimal tillage system and 12,0 l/t in the no tillage variant. The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha. The replacement of the work carried out with the pl ough with a mould board with the no tillage system reduces the energetic input with 15.52%. Within the variants V 4 (η=8,15), V 5 ( η=8,46) and V 6 (η=8,79), the energetic efficiency is bigger compared to the control variant ( η=8,12), meaning that the difference between the energy output and the energy input is superior in t hese variants compared to the control variant. The economic efficiency of the no tillage technolog y in maize crop consists of the achievement of yields similar to those achieved und er the classic system, but with smaller technological costs.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage reduced the energetic input of maize by 15.52% compared with the plough with a mould board.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The replacement of the work carried out with the pl ough with a mould board with the no tillage system reduces the energetic input with 15.52%”
e1“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Fuel intake under the mo tillage variant was 80,70 l/ha, lower than 111,10 l/ha under the classic system.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
e1“the determinations carried out upon fuel intake per total technology”
e2“So, under the conditions provided by the classic system, we h ave used 111,10 l/ha (100%) compared to 92,10-98,10 l/ha (82,90-88,30%) in the variants wit h minimal tillage and 80,70 l/ha (72,62%) in the mo tillage variant”
Claim · model-written summary
Fuel intake per tonne of yield was 12,0 l/t under no tillage, lower than 14,7 l/t under the classic system.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
e1“The fuel intake analyzed in comparison with the yie ld achieved has the following values: 14,7 l/t under the classic system, 13,2-13, 8 l/t in the variants with minimal tillage system and 12,0 l/t in the no tillage variant”
Claim · model-written summary
The energy intake for maize under the classic technology was 22,957 Mj/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Energetic efficiency of the V4 tillage variant (8.15) was bigger than that of the control variant (8.12).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
e1“the energetic efficiency is bigger compared to the control variant ( η=8,12)”
e2“V 4 (η=8,15)”
Claim · model-written summary
Energetic efficiency of the V5 tillage variant (8.46) was bigger than that of the control variant (8.12).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
e1“the energetic efficiency is bigger compared to the control variant ( η=8,12)”
e2“V 5 ( η=8,46)”
Claim · model-written summary
Energetic efficiency of the V6 no-tillage variant (8.79) was bigger than that of the control variant (8.12).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy intake for the initiation and maintenanc e of maize crop, according to the classic technology, represents 22,957 Mj/ha”
e1“the energetic efficiency is bigger compared to the control variant ( η=8,12)”
e2“V 6 (η=8,79)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage maize achieved yields similar to those under the classic system.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The economic efficiency of the no tillage technolog y in maize crop consists of the achievement of yields similar to those achieved und er the classic system, but with smaller technological costs”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage maize had smaller technological costs than the classic system.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The economic efficiency of the no tillage technolog y in maize crop consists of the achievement of yields similar to those achieved und er the classic system, but with smaller technological costs”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.