Abstract
Tillage practices are critical for sustaining soil quality necessary for successful crop growth and productivity, but there are only few studies for strip tillage (ST) in the Mollisols region of Northeast China at present. A long-term (≥10-year) study was carried out to investigate the influence of within the tilled row (IR) and between rows (BR) in ST (10-year), conventional tillage (CT, 14-year) and no tillage (NT, 14-year) treatments on soil physicochemical properties. Soil samples were taken in May of 2019 at 0–5, 5–10, 10–20 and 20–30 cm depths and used to analyze bulk density (BD), soil aggregate distribution and stability, and soil organic carbon (SOC). Meanwhile, our study also explored the differences in seed emergence, soil moisture, and temperature during the seed emergence period, and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) among the different treatments. Similar soil properties were observed between ST-BR and NT, which showed they had a significantly greater BD, >0.25 mm water stable aggregate content (WR0.25) (especially in the amount of >2 mm and 1–2 mm size proportion), aggregate stability, and SOC than ST-IR and CT-IR at a depth of 0–20 cm. By improving soil conditions of seedbed, ST-IR and CT-IR increased soil temperature above NT by 1.64 °C and 1.80 °C, respectively, and ST-IR had a slight greater soil moisture than CT-IR in the top 10 cm layer during the seed emergence period. Late maize seed emergence was observed NT in than ST-IR and CT-IR and the average annual yields in ST were slightly greater than NT and CT, but the differences were not significant. Our results also showed that CT-BR had a poor soil structure and lower SOC than other treatments at 0–30 cm depth. We conclude from these long-term experimental results that ST could improve soil water-heat conditions to promote seed germination, maintain soil structure, and increase the maize yield and it should be applied in the Mollisols region of Northeast China.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
ST-BR and NT had significantly greater aggregate stability than ST-IR and CT-IR at 0–20 cm depth.
- Treatment
- ST-BR and NTe0
- Outcome
- aggregate stabilitye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- at a depth of 0–20 cme0
- Comparator
- ST-IR and CT-IRe0
- Setting
- Northeast Chinat0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar soil properties were observed between ST-BR and NT, which showed they had a significantly greater BD, >0.25 mm water stable aggregate content (WR0.25) (especially in the amount of >2 mm and 1–2 mm size proportion), aggregate stability, and SOC than ST-IR and CT-IR at a depth of 0–20 cm”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-BR and NT had significantly greater soil organic carbon than ST-IR and CT-IR at 0–20 cm depth.
- Treatment
- ST-BR and NTe0
- Outcome
- SOCe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- at a depth of 0–20 cme0
- Comparator
- ST-IR and CT-IRe0
- Setting
- Northeast Chinat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar soil properties were observed between ST-BR and NT, which showed they had a significantly greater BD, >0.25 mm water stable aggregate content (WR0.25) (especially in the amount of >2 mm and 1–2 mm size proportion), aggregate stability, and SOC than ST-IR and CT-IR at a depth of 0–20 cm”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-BR and NT had significantly greater bulk density and water stable aggregate content than ST-IR and CT-IR at 0–20 cm depth.
- Treatment
- ST-BR and NTe0
- Outcome
- BD, >0.25 mm water stable aggregate content (WR0.25)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- at a depth of 0–20 cme0
- Comparator
- ST-IR and CT-IRe0
- Setting
- Northeast Chinat0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar soil properties were observed between ST-BR and NT, which showed they had a significantly greater BD, >0.25 mm water stable aggregate content (WR0.25) (especially in the amount of >2 mm and 1–2 mm size proportion), aggregate stability, and SOC than ST-IR and CT-IR at a depth of 0–20 cm”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-IR increased soil temperature above NT by 1.64 °C.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST-IR and CT-IR increased soil temperature above NT by 1.64 °C and 1.80 °C, respectively”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-IR increased soil temperature above NT by 1.80 °C.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST-IR and CT-IR increased soil temperature above NT by 1.64 °C and 1.80 °C, respectively”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-IR had slightly greater soil moisture than CT-IR in the top 10 cm layer during seed emergence.
- Treatment
- ST-IRe0
- Outcome
- soil moisturee0
- Direction
- slight greatere0
- Qualifier
- in the top 10 cm layer during the seed emergence periode0
- Comparator
- CT-IRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST-IR had a slight greater soil moisture than CT-IR in the top 10 cm layer during the seed emergence period”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize seed emergence was later under no tillage than under ST-IR and CT-IR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late maize seed emergence was observed NT in than ST-IR and CT-IR”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
The average annual maize yields in strip tillage were slightly greater than under NT and CT, but the differences were not significant.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average annual yields in ST were slightly greater than NT and CT, but the differences were not significant”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-BR had a poor soil structure compared with other treatments at 0–30 cm depth.
- Treatment
- CT-BRe0
- Outcome
- soil structuree0
- Direction
- poore0
- Qualifier
- at 0–30 cm depthe0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our results also showed that CT-BR had a poor soil structure and lower SOC than other treatments at 0–30 cm depth”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-BR had lower soil organic carbon than other treatments at 0–30 cm depth.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Our results also showed that CT-BR had a poor soil structure and lower SOC than other treatments at 0–30 cm depth”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage should be applied in the Mollisols region of Northeast China to improve soil water-heat conditions and maize yield.
- Outcome
- should be applied in the Mollisols region of Northeast Chinae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it should be applied in the Mollisols region of Northeast China”
t0“Yield of Maize in Northeast China”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 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
- no effect
- negative
- negative
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- 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.