Agronomic and economic performance of 26‐year corn–soybean rotation affected by tillage and fertilization in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adoption of conservation practices such as no‐tillage (NT) may benefit soil properties and related yields. However, magnitude of changes is dependent upon time scale, soil characteristics, and climatic conditions, which has received little attention in eastern Canada. A 26‐yr field experiment was conducted on a clay loam soil at L'Acadie, southwestern Quebec, to evaluate the effect of NT vs. moldboard plow (MP) and mineral N (0, 80, and 160 kg N ha –1 ) and P (0, 17.5, and 35 kg P ha –1 ) fertilization on grain yields, soil properties, and annual net returns of a corn ( Zea mays L.)–soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rotation. Tillage was performed every year, while fertilizers were only applied to the corn phase. Throughout the years, the site responded well to N fertilization but not consistently to P. Tillage system did not affect corn grain yield in the first 10 yr, but yield gradually declined under NT and produced 2.3 Mg ha –1 less than MP with recommended N rate in the last 8 yr. By contrast, NT reduced soybean yield in the first decade (0.32 Mg ha −1 ) but not thereafter. After 24 yr of implementation, NT largely increased organic matter and Mehlich‐3 P and K in the 0‐to‐5‐cm surface layer, but this did not translate into higher yields. Compared with NT, MP achieved CAN$200 ha –1 more revenue during last years at recommended N rate despite higher operation costs. Results demonstrated that under northern latitudes, this clay soil was not appropriate for NT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".