Abstract
Clayey Ultisols in humid subtropical regions exhibit contrasting water distribution during seasonal drought, with deficiency in topsoil while retaining moisture in subsoil. Although mechanical and bio-tillage practices can enhance soil water utilization and alleviate crop drought stress, quantitative methods to assess their comparative effectiveness remain limited. This study investigated the mechanisms and potential of both tillage approaches in enhancing maize drought resistance through energy dissipation associated with root water uptake ( D rwu ), using two-year field experiments in Xianning, Hubei, China. D rwu (J·s −1 ·cm −3 ), representing the energy required for roots to absorb a unit water volume, served as a quantitative indicator of tillage-modified drought resistance. Results demonstrated that mechanical tillage (MT) primarily improved soil hydraulic conductivity ( K ) and root length density (RLD) in the 10 − 20 cm layer, while bio-tillage (BT) enhanced these parameters throughout the profile and additionally improved root distribution depth index (RDDI) below 40 cm. Under equivalent root water uptake conditions, MT substantially reduced D rwu during drought by enhancing K and RLD compared to no-tillage (CK) in the 10–20 cm depth, enhancements that were associated with D rwu reductions of 83.3–90.0% and 33.5–50.0%, respectively. However, its effectiveness diminished in subsoil due to limited tillage depth. Compared to CK, BT not only reduced topsoil (0–20 cm) D rwu by 33.3–80.0%, but also enhanced subsoil (40 − 60 cm) K and RLD, enhancements that were associated with D rwu reductions of 88.9–96.2% and 66.7–80.0%, respectively. Furthermore, BT improved RDDI to 1.36 times that of CK (namely, the maximum maize root depth increased by 10 cm), which was associated with a 26.5% reduction in D rwu under severe drought, while MT showed no such benefit. Our study further indicated that yields in MT and BT treatments increased by 33 − 55% and 55 − 180%, respectively. MT showed effectiveness for alleviating mild drought stress, whereas BT demonstrated superior performance during severe drought by expanding the spatial distribution of root water uptake. This study provides practical guidance for optimizing tillage management to enhance soil-crop system drought resistance in humid subtropical climates experiencing seasonal water deficits.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage improved soil hydraulic conductivity and root length density in the 10-20 cm layer.
- Treatment
- mechanical tillage (MT)e1
- Outcome
- soil hydraulic conductivity ( K ) and root length density (RLD)e1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Qualifier
- 10 − 20 cm layere1
- Setting
- Xianning, Hubei, Chinae2
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“mechanical tillage (MT) primarily improved soil hydraulic conductivity ( K ) and root length density (RLD) in the 10 − 20 cm layer”
e2“two-year field experiments in Xianning, Hubei, China”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage enhanced soil hydraulic conductivity and root length density throughout the profile.
- Treatment
- bio-tillage (BT)e3
- Outcome
- soil hydraulic conductivity ( K ) and root length density (RLD)e1
- Direction
- enhancede3
- Qualifier
- throughout the profilee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“mechanical tillage (MT) primarily improved soil hydraulic conductivity ( K ) and root length density (RLD) in the 10 − 20 cm layer”
e3“bio-tillage (BT) enhanced these parameters throughout the profile”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage improved root distribution depth index (RDDI) to 1.36 times that of no-tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e4“BT improved RDDI to 1.36 times that of CK (namely, the maximum maize root depth increased by 10 cm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage increased maximum maize root depth by 10 cm.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e4“BT improved RDDI to 1.36 times that of CK (namely, the maximum maize root depth increased by 10 cm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage reduced root water uptake energy dissipation (D rwu) by 83.3-90.0% in the 10-20 cm depth, with enhanced hydraulic conductivity.
- Treatment
- MTe5
- Outcome
- D rwue5
- Direction
- reducede5
- Value
- 83.3–90.0%e5
- Qualifier
- enhancing Ke5
- Comparator
- no-tillage (CK)e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e5“MT substantially reduced D rwu during drought by enhancing K and RLD compared to no-tillage (CK) in the 10–20 cm depth, enhancements that were associated with D rwu reductions of 83.3–90.0% and 33.5–50.0%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage reduced D rwu by 33.5-50.0% in the 10-20 cm depth, with enhanced root length density.
- Treatment
- MTe5
- Outcome
- D rwue5
- Direction
- reducede5
- Value
- 33.5–50.0%e5
- Qualifier
- enhancing K and RLDe5
- Comparator
- no-tillage (CK)e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e5“MT substantially reduced D rwu during drought by enhancing K and RLD compared to no-tillage (CK) in the 10–20 cm depth, enhancements that were associated with D rwu reductions of 83.3–90.0% and 33.5–50.0%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The effectiveness of mechanical tillage diminished in subsoil due to limited tillage depth.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e5“MT substantially reduced D rwu during drought by enhancing K and RLD compared to no-tillage (CK) in the 10–20 cm depth”
e6“its effectiveness diminished in subsoil due to limited tillage depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage reduced topsoil (0-20 cm) D rwu by 33.3-80.0% compared with no-tillage.
- Treatment
- BTe6
- Outcome
- D rwue6
- Direction
- reducede6
- Value
- 33.3–80.0%e6
- Qualifier
- topsoil (0–20 cm)e6
- Comparator
- CKe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e6“Compared to CK, BT not only reduced topsoil (0–20 cm) D rwu by 33.3–80.0%”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage enhanced subsoil (40-60 cm) hydraulic conductivity and root length density compared with no-tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e6“Compared to CK, BT not only reduced topsoil (0–20 cm) D rwu by 33.3–80.0%”
e7“but also enhanced subsoil (40 − 60 cm) K and RLD”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage reduced D rwu by 88.9-96.2% in subsoil.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“Compared to CK, BT not only reduced topsoil (0–20 cm) D rwu by 33.3–80.0%”
e2“but also enhanced subsoil (40 − 60 cm) K and RLD”
e3“enhancements that were associated with D rwu reductions of 88.9–96.2% and 66.7–80.0%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage reduced D rwu by 66.7-80.0% in subsoil with enhanced root length density.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“Compared to CK, BT not only reduced topsoil (0–20 cm) D rwu by 33.3–80.0%”
e2“but also enhanced subsoil (40 − 60 cm) K and RLD”
e3“enhancements that were associated with D rwu reductions of 88.9–96.2% and 66.7–80.0%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage reduced D rwu by 26.5% under severe drought.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“Compared to CK, BT not only reduced topsoil (0–20 cm) D rwu by 33.3–80.0%”
e2“which was associated with a 26.5% reduction in D rwu under severe drought, while MT showed no such benefit”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage showed no such benefit for D rwu under severe drought.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“which was associated with a 26.5% reduction in D rwu under severe drought, while MT showed no such benefit”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage increased yield by 33-55%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“yields in MT and BT treatments increased by 33 − 55% and 55 − 180%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage increased yield by 55-180%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“yields in MT and BT treatments increased by 33 − 55% and 55 − 180%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage was effective for alleviating mild drought stress.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“MT showed effectiveness for alleviating mild drought stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-tillage showed superior performance during severe drought by expanding the spatial distribution of root water uptake.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhancing maize drought resistance”
e1“BT demonstrated superior performance during severe drought by expanding the spatial distribution of root water uptake”
The same questions in other papers
transgenic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →transgenic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 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
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- 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.