Abstract
Maize productivity is mainly constrained by the climate, meteorological and soil conditions, and agro-technological practice. Reduced primary tillage intensity might be a method to optimize the complex interactions between these conditions. An 8-year field experiment was designed to test this. The aim of the experiment was to establish the influence of deep and shallow ploughing, chiselling, disking and no-tillage systems on parameters of maize productivity. No-tillage resulted in a significant decrease in maize stand density compared with deep and shallow ploughing, as well as chiselling, while maize canopy height and dry biomass was slightly higher in the no-tillage system. Nevertheless, in no-tillage plots the maize yield was insignificantly lower than in deeply and shallowly ploughed plots (on average 3.5–6.4% less). Overall, long-term reduction of primary tillage had less impact on maize productivity parameters than meteorological conditions during the vegetation period.
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
No tillage significantly reduced maize stand density relative to deep and shallow ploughing and chiselling.
- Treatment
- No-tillagee0
- Outcome
- maize stand densitye0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Comparator
- deep and shallow ploughing, as well as chisellinge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-tillage resulted in a significant decrease in maize stand density compared with deep and shallow ploughing, as well as chiselling”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize canopy height was slightly higher under no tillage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize canopy height and dry biomass was slightly higher in the no-tillage system”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize dry biomass was slightly higher under no tillage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize canopy height and dry biomass was slightly higher in the no-tillage system”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage maize yield was 3.5–6.4% lower on average than deeply and shallowly ploughed plots, without statistical significance.
- Treatment
- no-tillage plotse0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 3.5–6.4%e0
- Comparator
- deeply and shallowly ploughed plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in no-tillage plots the maize yield was insignificantly lower than in deeply and shallowly ploughed plots (on average 3.5–6.4% less)”
Claim · model-written summary
Meteorological conditions during vegetation had more impact on maize productivity parameters than long-term tillage reduction.
- Treatment
- long-term reduction of primary tillagee0
- Outcome
- maize productivity parameterse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- meteorological conditions during the vegetation periode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“long-term reduction of primary tillage had less impact on maize productivity parameters than meteorological conditions during the vegetation period.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- 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.