Long-term tillage and synthetic fertilization affect soil functioning and crop yields in a corn—soybean rotation in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ziadi, N., Angers, D. A., Gagnon, B., Lalande, R., Morel, C., Rochette, P. and Chantigny, M. H. 2014. Long-term tillage and synthetic fertilization affect soil functioning and crop yields in a corn-soybean rotation in eastern Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 94: 365-376. Adoption of conservation practices can induce beneficial changes to soil properties and related crop yields in which magnitude varies according to soil and climatic conditions but usually increases with time. A long-term field experiment was initiated in 1992 at L'Acadie in southern Quebec on a clay loam soil to evaluate the effect of tillage [mouldboard plow (MP) vs. conservation (CT)], synthetic N fertilization (0, 80, and 160 kg N ha-1) and synthetic P fertilization (0, 17.5, and 35 kg P ha-1) on soil functioning and grain yields of a corn-soybean rotation. Soil tillage was performed every year while synthetic fertilizers were applied only to the corn. Results obtained 12 to 20 yr after initiation of the study indicated that CT enhanced organic C accumulation, NO3-N, P and K availability, microbial biomass and activity, and microbial community structure in the upper soil layer, likely due to leaving crop residues at the soil surface. The MP practice resulted in greater organic C content deeper, near the bottom of the plow layer, which promoted soil microbial activity at that depth. However, soil N2O emissions were not affected by tillage. The N and P fertilization increased the availability of these nutrients, but had no significant effect on the soil microbial biomass, activity, and structure. Linear relationships were established between soil available P and cumulative P budgets obtained under MP or 0 kg P ha-1 under CT. Crop yields varied by year in this study but on average, MP yielded 10% more corn and 13% more soybeans than CT. Corn yield increased linearly with added synthetic N each year, whereas soybean yield was little affected by residual N, and both crops did not respond to fertilizer P. Response to N fertilization did not differ due to tillage or P. Despite higher costs associated with plowing, the profitability of MP was greater than CT on this clay loam soil due to greater yields. Specialized management practices (e.g., delayed planting, better herbicide selection, fall cover crop, in-row tillage) might help to improve CT performance on these cool, humid fine-textured soils.
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".