Abstract
Core Ideas Strip tillage had relative production advantage over other tillage practices in corn production. Strip tillage showed greater water use efficiency than conventional tillage. No‐tillage showed higher residual carryover soil moisture, NO 3 –N and total N. ABSTRACT Successful corn ( Zea mays L.) production in semiarid and arid southwestern United States is limited by available resources, especially water and N, and management of such limited resources need efficient on‐farm tillage and N management decisions. A 3‐yr study was conducted at New Mexico State University Agricultural Science Center, Tucumcari, NM, to evaluate the effectiveness of three tillage strategies (conventional, strip, and no‐tillage) and two N rates (196 and 308 kg ha −1 ) on corn yield, water use, and carry‐over residual water and N characteristics. Tillage × N‐rate interaction had no significant impact on corn yield, water use, and residual soil characteristics ( P > 0.05). No‐tillage showed consistent lower grain and stover yield in all three years. Strip tillage (ST) had a relative grain yield advantage over other tillage practices in 2 out of 3 yrs. Strip tillage showed higher harvesting index and greater water use efficiency (WUE) than conventional tillage (CT). No‐tillage (NT) had 20 to 45% greater residual carry‐over soil moisture than CT during the 3‐yr study period. Percent change (draw‐down) in soil profile moisture and NO3–N in each site‐year were higher in CT than other tillage treatments at both 0 to 30 and 30‐ to 60‐cm depth increments. No‐tillage resulted in higher residual carry‐over NO3–N and total N at both incremental depths in each tested year, without exception. Overall, implementation of ST in the semiarid regions has significant advantage over other tillage practices in improving the resource use efficiency in corn production.
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
Tillage by nitrogen rate interaction had no significant impact on corn yield, water use, or residual soil characteristics.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse1 - Treatment
- Tillage × N‐rate interactione0
- Outcome
- corn yield, water use, and residual soil characteristicse0
- Direction
- no significant impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tillage × N‐rate interaction had no significant impact on corn yield, water use, and residual soil characteristics ( P > 0.05)”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage had lower corn grain and stover yields in all three years.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- No‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain and stover yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- all three yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage showed consistent lower grain and stover yield in all three years”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage had a relative grain yield advantage over other tillage practices in two of three years.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Strip tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 2 out of 3 yrse0
- Comparator
- other tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Strip tillage (ST) had a relative grain yield advantage over other tillage practices in 2 out of 3 yrs”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage had a higher harvesting index than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Strip tillagee0
- Outcome
- harvesting indexe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Strip tillage showed higher harvesting index and greater water use efficiency (WUE) than conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage had greater water use efficiency than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Strip tillagee0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Strip tillage showed higher harvesting index and greater water use efficiency (WUE) than conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage had 20 to 45% greater residual soil moisture than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- No‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- residual carry‐over soil moisturee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 20 to 45%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage (NT) had 20 to 45% greater residual carry‐over soil moisture than CT during the 3‐yr study period”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
e2“conventional tillage (CT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had greater soil profile moisture drawdown than other tillage treatments at both sampled depths.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- Percent change (draw‐down) in soil profile moisturee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- both 0 to 30 and 30‐ to 60‐cm depth incrementse0
- Comparator
- other tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percent change (draw‐down) in soil profile moisture and NO3–N in each site‐year were higher in CT than other tillage treatments at both 0 to 30 and 30‐ to 60‐cm depth increments”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had greater soil nitrate drawdown than other tillage treatments at both sampled depths.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- NO3–Ne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percent change (draw‐down) in soil profile moisture and NO3–N in each site‐year were higher in CT than other tillage treatments at both 0 to 30 and 30‐ to 60‐cm depth increments”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage left higher residual soil nitrate and total nitrogen at both depths in every tested year.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- No‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- residual carry‐over NO3–N and total Ne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- both incremental depths in each tested yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐tillage resulted in higher residual carry‐over NO3–N and total N at both incremental depths in each tested year, without exception”
e1“corn ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that strip tillage improves resource use efficiency in semiarid corn production.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- implementation of STe0
- Comparator
- other tillage practicese0
- Setting
- semiarid regionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“implementation of ST in the semiarid regions has significant advantage over other tillage practices in improving the resource use efficiency in corn production”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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
- no effect
- negative
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.