Abstract
Abstract Conservation tillage is a primary tenet of conservation agriculture aimed at restoring and maintaining soil health for long-term crop productivity. Because soil degradation typically operates on century timescales, farmer adoption is influenced by near-term yield impacts and profitability. Although numerous localized field trials have examined the yield impacts of conservation tillage, their results are mixed and often unrepresentative of real-world conditions. Here, we applied a machine-learning causal inference approach to satellite-derived datasets of tillage practices and crop yields spanning the US Corn Belt from 2005 to 2017 to assess on-the-ground yield impacts at field-level resolution across thousands of fields. We found an average 3.3% and 0.74% yield increase for maize and soybeans, respectively, for fields with long-term conservation tillage. This effect was diminished in fields that only recently converted to conservation tillage. We also found significant variability in these effects, and we identified soil and weather characteristics that mediate the direction and magnitude of yield responses. This work supports soil conservation practices by demonstrating they can be used with minimal and typically positive yield impacts.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term conservation tillage increased maize yield by an average of 3.3%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We found an average 3.3% and 0.74% yield increase for maize and soybeans, respectively, for fields with long-term conservation tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term conservation tillage increased soybean yield by an average of 0.74%.
- Taxon
- soybeans
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- long-term conservation tillagee1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 0.74%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We found an average 3.3% and 0.74% yield increase for maize and soybeans, respectively, for fields with long-term conservation tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield effect of conservation tillage was diminished in fields that only recently converted.
- Taxon
- maize and soybeansGlycine max
Zea mayse1 - Treatment
- recently converted to conservation tillagee2
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- diminishede2
- Comparator
- long-term conservation tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We found an average 3.3% and 0.74% yield increase for maize and soybeans, respectively, for fields with long-term conservation tillage”
e2“This effect was diminished in fields that only recently converted to conservation tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield responses to conservation tillage varied significantly, and soil and weather characteristics mediated their direction and magnitude.
- Taxon
- maize and soybeansGlycine maxZea mayse1
- Outcome
- yield responsese3
- Qualifier
- soil and weather characteristics that mediate the direction and magnitudee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We found an average 3.3% and 0.74% yield increase for maize and soybeans, respectively, for fields with long-term conservation tillage”
e3“We also found significant variability in these effects, and we identified soil and weather characteristics that mediate the direction and magnitude of yield responses”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage can be used with minimal and typically positive yield impacts.
- Taxon
- maize and soybeansGlycine maxZea mayse1
- Outcome
- yield impactse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We found an average 3.3% and 0.74% yield increase for maize and soybeans, respectively, for fields with long-term conservation tillage”
e4“This work supports soil conservation practices by demonstrating they can be used with minimal and typically positive yield impacts”
The same questions in other 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
- positive
- positive
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
- no effect
- 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.