Abstract
Tillage systems for soil conservation (CT) have been extended in the last decades on a large scale all over the world, as an attractive alternative to the conventional practices, mainly due to their reduced cost of production and important contribution to soil and environment protection.This research was carried out at the National Agricultural Research and Development Institute Fundulea (NARDI), in 2008-2009 agricultural year (the second year of these technology testing) on a cambic chernozem soil type. The main objective was the evaluation of economic efficiency of different tillage systems for three crops: winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L) Merr.], in rotation. The following tillage systems were studied: (I) traditional, with moldboard plough (TS); (II) chisel plough tillage – primary tillage executed with chisel implement type without furrow overthrowing (CS); (III) disk/sweep tillage (DS); (IV) strip till (ST) – a variant of „No till”, applied to row crops. (V) No till (NT) – without any tillage work. The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels. Thus, for winter wheat, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 58%, labor cost and time with up to 55%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 47%. For maize, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 69%, labor time with up to 61% and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 28%. For soybean, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 66%, labor time with up to 65%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 13%. It is considered that, beside enhancing economic efficiency by decreasing inputs for crop production without reducing outputs, the conservative tillage systems have an important contribution to soil preservation against erosion, and overall to the environment protection.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced fuel consumption in winter wheat by up to 58% compared with traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- fuel consumptione1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 58%e1
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e1“For winter wheat, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 58%, labor cost and time with up to 55%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 47%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced labor cost and time in winter wheat by up to 55% compared with traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- labor cost and timee1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 55%e1
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e1“For winter wheat, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 58%, labor cost and time with up to 55%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 47%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced the cost per tonne of grain in winter wheat by up to 47% compared with traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- cost per one tone of graine1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 47%e1
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e1“For winter wheat, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 58%, labor cost and time with up to 55%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 47%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced fuel consumption in maize by up to 69% compared with traditional tillage.
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- fuel consumptione2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 69%e2
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e2“For maize, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 69%, labor time with up to 61% and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 28%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced labor time in maize by up to 61% compared with traditional tillage.
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- labor timee2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 61%e2
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e2“For maize, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 69%, labor time with up to 61% and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 28%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced the cost per tonne of grain in maize by up to 28% compared with traditional tillage.
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- cost per one tone of graine2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 28%e2
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e2“For maize, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 69%, labor time with up to 61% and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 28%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced fuel consumption in soybean by up to 66% compared with traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe3 - Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- fuel consumptione3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 66%e3
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e3“For soybean, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 66%, labor time with up to 65%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 13%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced labor time in soybean by up to 65% compared with traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe3
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- labor timee3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 65%e3
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e3“For soybean, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 66%, labor time with up to 65%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 13%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced the cost per tonne of grain in soybean by up to 13% compared with traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe3
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- cost per one tone of graine3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 13%e3
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e3“For soybean, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 66%, labor time with up to 65%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 13%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage kept winter wheat yield levels similar to traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- yield levelse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e1“For winter wheat, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 58%, labor cost and time with up to 55%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 47%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage kept maize yield levels similar to traditional tillage.
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- yield levelse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e2“For maize, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 69%, labor time with up to 61% and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 28%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage kept soybean yield levels similar to traditional tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe3
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systems (CT)e0
- Outcome
- yield levelse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- traditional one (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results of this research reveal important economical advantages of conservation tillage systems (CT) in comparison with traditional one (TS), for all three crops in rotation, maintaining similar yield levels”
e3“For soybean, fuel consumption was reduced with up to 66%, labor time with up to 65%, and the cost per one tone of grain with up to 13%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage systems are considered to contribute to soil preservation against erosion and to environmental protection.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER WHEAT, MAIZE AND SOYBEAN”
e4“It is considered that, beside enhancing economic efficiency by decreasing inputs for crop production without reducing outputs, the conservative tillage systems have an important contribution to soil preservation against erosion, and overall to the environment protection”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →tillage · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →tillage · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 100 in the opposite direction · 26 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 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
- negative
- positive
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
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.