The impact of conservation tillage intensities on mean yields and yield risk

Ayesha Cooray , Roderick M. Rejesus , Serkan Aglasan , Zheng Li , Alex Woodley
{"title":"The impact of conservation tillage intensities on mean yields and yield risk","authors":"Ayesha Cooray ,&nbsp;Roderick M. Rejesus ,&nbsp;Serkan Aglasan ,&nbsp;Zheng Li ,&nbsp;Alex Woodley","doi":"10.1016/j.soisec.2023.100096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Understanding the productivity and production risk effects of conservation tillage practices are important so that growers can make better decisions about tillage systems appropriate for their farm operations. This study investigates the mean yield and yield risk effects of conservation tillage practices with varying levels of tillage intensity and timing. Long-term field trial data for corn (<em>Zea mays,</em> L.) and soybeans (<em>Glycine</em> max<em>,</em> L. <em>Merr.</em>) in the North Carolina Piedmont, together with moment-based regression models, were used to achieve the objective of the study. Our empirical analysis suggests that conservation tillage treatments (with lower tillage intensities and higher residue levels) consistently have higher mean yields than conventional tillage practices in the sandy loam soils of the North Carolina Piedmont. However, we find that conservation tillage practices with lower intensities (and higher residue levels) do not generally have a consistent statistically significant risk reducing effect based on the higher-order moments of the yield distribution (e.g., variance, skewness, and kurtosis). This indicates that conservation tillage does not consistently result in statistically lower production risk relative to conventional tillage methods.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74839,"journal":{"name":"Soil security","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100096"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667006223000138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding the productivity and production risk effects of conservation tillage practices are important so that growers can make better decisions about tillage systems appropriate for their farm operations. This study investigates the mean yield and yield risk effects of conservation tillage practices with varying levels of tillage intensity and timing. Long-term field trial data for corn (Zea mays, L.) and soybeans (Glycine max, L. Merr.) in the North Carolina Piedmont, together with moment-based regression models, were used to achieve the objective of the study. Our empirical analysis suggests that conservation tillage treatments (with lower tillage intensities and higher residue levels) consistently have higher mean yields than conventional tillage practices in the sandy loam soils of the North Carolina Piedmont. However, we find that conservation tillage practices with lower intensities (and higher residue levels) do not generally have a consistent statistically significant risk reducing effect based on the higher-order moments of the yield distribution (e.g., variance, skewness, and kurtosis). This indicates that conservation tillage does not consistently result in statistically lower production risk relative to conventional tillage methods.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护性耕作强度对平均产量和产量风险的影响
了解保护性耕作对生产力和生产风险的影响非常重要,这样种植者就可以更好地决定适合其农场经营的耕作制度。研究了不同耕作强度和耕作时间下保护性耕作的平均产量和产量风险效应。利用北卡罗莱纳州皮埃蒙特地区玉米(Zea mays, L.)和大豆(Glycine max, L. Merr.)的长期田间试验数据,结合矩基回归模型实现研究目标。我们的实证分析表明,在北卡罗莱纳州皮埃蒙特的沙壤土中,保护性耕作(低耕作强度和高残留水平)始终比常规耕作具有更高的平均产量。然而,我们发现,基于产量分布的高阶矩(如方差、偏度和峰度),低强度(和高残留水平)的保护性耕作通常没有一致的统计学显著风险降低效果。这表明,与传统耕作方法相比,保护性耕作在统计上并不总是导致较低的生产风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Soil security
Soil security Soil Science
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
90 days
期刊最新文献
Heavy metal pollution in farmland soils surrounding mining areas in China and the response of soil microbial communities Integration of indigenous and formal knowledge in the assessment of soil quality performance assessment using multiple factor analysis in Alborz central mountains Medium-term economic impacts of cover crop adoption in Maryland Using MIR and XRF spectroscopy to develop a heavy metal leaching potential model in Irish top soils Erratum regarding missing Conflict of Interest (COI) Statements in previously published articles
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1