Abstract
A soil tillage system adjusted to the soil type and agro-ecological conditions, together with the optimal nutrient supply, is a prerequisite for high maize (Zea mays L.) yield. However, there is little knowledge about the influence of soil tillage and nitrogen (N) rates on maize grain quality. A study was initiated in 1978 in Zemun Polje, Belgrade, Serbia, on the chernozem soil type. The effects of three N rates—0, 180 and 240 kg N ha−1—within three tillage practices—no-tillage, reduced and conventional tillage—and their influence on grain yield (GY) and the content of proteins, starch, oil, total tocopherols and carotenoids, phytic phosphorus (Phy), glutathione (GSH), phenols and inorganic P (Pi) in maize grain were analysed in the period 2016–2018. Differences in maize GY were 2.57 and 3.01 t ha−1 for reduced- or no-tillage, respectively, in comparison to conventional tillage. Conventional tillage and higher N rates contributed to the increase in maize yield and the grain nutritional quality with regard to the increased level of proteins, GSH and Phy. On the other hand reduced inputs were beneficial only for grain quality, in relation to the increase in tocopherols and phenols.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage differed from conventional tillage in maize grain yield by 2.57 t ha−1.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in maize GY were 2.57 and 3.01 t ha−1 for reduced- or no-tillage, respectively, in comparison to conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage differed from conventional tillage in maize grain yield by 3.01 t ha−1.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in maize GY were 2.57 and 3.01 t ha−1 for reduced- or no-tillage, respectively, in comparison to conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage increased maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage and higher N rates contributed to the increase in maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher nitrogen rates increased maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage and higher N rates contributed to the increase in maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage increased grain protein, GSH and Phy levels.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage and higher N rates contributed to the increase in maize yield and the grain nutritional quality with regard to the increased level of proteins, GSH and Phy”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher nitrogen rates increased grain protein, GSH and Phy levels.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage and higher N rates contributed to the increase in maize yield and the grain nutritional quality with regard to the increased level of proteins, GSH and Phy”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced inputs increased maize grain tocopherols and phenols.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced inputs were beneficial only for grain quality, in relation to the increase in tocopherols and phenols”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) yield”
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
- no effect
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 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 →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.