Abstract
Conservation tillage management on rainfed croplands aims to improve the soil's physical environment, reduce soil erodibility, and enhance conservation. However, transitioning from plowing to conservation tillage can present challenges, particularly regarding soil compaction and erosion-runoff dynamics. This study comprehensively evaluates soil degradation in an area characterized by maize cultivation in Croatia on Stagnosols extremely prone to compaction and erosion. During 2024, the impacts of plowing, chisel, and subsoiling were monitored, considering soil properties, erosion, and element losses. Nine experimental plots (100 m x 8 m) were established, each equipped with a runoff and sediment collection system. Soil erosion and sediment transport were monitored throughout the maize growing season. The results reveal significantly reduced sediment concentrations by 49.1% at chisel plots compared to plowing plots, while subsoiling led to a 77.7% reduction. The highest sediment loss occurred under plowing, while chisel decreased soil loss by 73.4% and subsoiling by 95.9%. Nutrient losses followed a similar pattern. The sediment collected from plowing plots was significantly enriched with nutrients and heavy metals, compared to bulk soil, highlighting the role of soil erosion rates in nutrient depletion and pollution. In contrast, subsoiling showed no significant differences between sediment and bulk soil concentrations, reinforcing its role in reducing fine particle detachment and nutrient loss. Subsoiling significantly reduced bulk density and penetration resistance at 10-30 cm depth. The highest water-holding capacity was determined under subsoiling, i.e. it was 7.6% greater than under plowing, contributing to better soil moisture retention. The highest maize biomass yields were found (p > 0.05) under subsoiling (25.06 t ha-1); they were 11 and 19% greater than in the plowing and chisel treatment, respectively. Subsoiling significantly improves soil structure, minimizes erosion, and reduces nutrient losses, making it a viable conservation strategy for sloped agricultural landscapes. The substantially reduced sediment transport under subsoiling indicates that deep loosening enhances soil stability and infiltration, providing long-term benefits for sustainable soil management and water quality protection on Stagnosols.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Chisel lowered sediment concentration by 49.1% versus plowing.
- Treatment
- chisele0
- Outcome
- sediment concentrationse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 49.1%e0
- Comparator
- plowing plotse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly reduced sediment concentrations by 49.1% at chisel plots compared to plowing plots”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling lowered sediment concentration by 77.7%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“subsoiling led to a 77.7% reduction”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Chisel decreased soil loss by 73.4% compared with plowing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest sediment loss occurred under plowing, while chisel decreased soil loss by 73.4%”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling decreased soil loss by 95.9% compared with plowing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest sediment loss occurred under plowing, while chisel decreased soil loss by 73.4% and subsoiling by 95.9%”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient losses followed the soil loss pattern.
- Outcome
- Nutrient lossese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nutrient losses followed a similar pattern.”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Sediment from plowing plots was enriched in nutrients and heavy metals versus bulk soil.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sediment collected from plowing plots was significantly enriched with nutrients and heavy metals, compared to bulk soil”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling showed no significant sediment versus bulk soil concentration differences.
- Treatment
- subsoilinge0
- Outcome
- sediment and bulk soil concentrationse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“subsoiling showed no significant differences between sediment and bulk soil concentrations”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling reduced bulk density and penetration resistance at 10-30 cm.
- Treatment
- Subsoilinge0
- Outcome
- bulk density and penetration resistancee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 10-30 cm depthe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsoiling significantly reduced bulk density and penetration resistance at 10-30 cm depth.”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Water-holding capacity under subsoiling was 7.6% greater than plowing.
- Treatment
- subsoilinge0
- Outcome
- water-holding capacitye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7.6%e0
- Comparator
- plowinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest water-holding capacity was determined under subsoiling, i.e. it was 7.6% greater than under plowing”
t0“maize cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling maize biomass yield was 25.06 t ha-1 and 11% greater than plowing.
- Treatment
- subsoilinge0
- Outcome
- maize biomass yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 25.06 t ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 11e0
- Comparator
- plowinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest maize biomass yields were found (p > 0.05) under subsoiling (25.06 t ha-1); they were 11 and 19% greater than in the plowing and chisel treatment, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoiling maize biomass yield was 19% greater than chisel.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest maize biomass yields were found (p > 0.05) under subsoiling (25.06 t ha-1); they were 11 and 19% greater than in the plowing and chisel treatment, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify subsoiling as a viable conservation strategy for sloped agricultural landscapes.
- Outcome
- viable conservation strategy for sloped agricultural landscapese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“making it a viable conservation strategy for sloped agricultural landscapes”
t0“maize cultivation”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 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
- negative
- no effect
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
- positive
- 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.