Next Article in Journal
Relationship between Climate-Shaped Urbanization and Forest Ecological Function: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-Term Effect of Tillage Systems on Planosol Physical Properties, CO2 Emissions and Spring Barley Productivity
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Transfer of Land Development Rights on Urban–Rural Integration: Theoretical Framework and Evidence from Chongqing, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Different Tillage and Residue Management Options on Soil Water Transmission and Mechanical Behavior
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/land12112046
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Application of Unconventional Tillage Systems to Maize Cultivation and Measures for Rational Use of Agricultural Lands

by
Felicia Chețan
1,
Teodor Rusu
2,*,
Cornel Chețan
1,
Alina Șimon
1,
Ana-Maria Vălean
1,*,
Adrian Ovidiu Ceclan
1,
Marius Bărdaș
1 and
Adina Tărău
1
1
Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda, Agriculturii Street 27, 401100 Turda, Romania
2
Department of Technical and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Mănăstur Street 3–5, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(11), 2046; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112046
Submission received: 9 October 2023 / Revised: 6 November 2023 / Accepted: 8 November 2023 / Published: 10 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tillage Methods on Soil Properties and Crop Growth)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the main agricultural crops grown worldwide under very diverse climate and soil conditions. For maize cultivation in a conventional tillage system, autumn plowing is a mandatory condition. Minimum soil tillage or no tillage has been applied in recent years, both in research and in production, for reasons relating to soil conservation and fuel economy. This paper presents the results of the research executed under pedoclimatic conditions at the Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda (ARDS Turda, Romania; chernozem soil) regarding the behavior of the maize hybrid Turda 332 cultivated in four tillage systems and two levels of fertilization during the period of 2016–2022. The following soil tillage systems were applied: a conventional tillage system (CT) and unconventional tillage systems in three variants—a minimum tillage system with a chisel (MTC), a minimum tillage system with a disk (MTD), and a no-tillage system (NT). They were applied with two levels of fertilization: basic fertilization (350 kg ha−1 NPK 16:16:16, applied at sowing) and optimized fertilization (350 kg ha−1 NPK 16:16:16 applied at sowing + 150 kg ha−1 calcium ammonium nitrate with additional fertilization in the phenophase of the maize with 6–7 leaves). The results highlight the fact that under the conditions of chernozem soils with a high clay content (41% clay content), maize does not lend itself to cultivation in MTD and NT, requiring deeper mobilization, with the yield data confirming this fact. This is because under the agrotechnical conditions for sowing carried out in MTD and NT, the seeder used (Maschio Gaspardo MT 6R) does not allow for the high-quality sowing of maize, especially under dry soil conditions. Instead, the MTC system could be an alternative to the conventional tillage system, with the yield difference being below 100 kg ha−1.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) represents an important crop with multiple uses and advantages [1,2,3]. Being a very versatile crop, it is used in human nutrition [4] as an important source of minerals, fiber, carbohydrates, and a complex of vitamins A and B; as fodder grains, flour, silage, and cob; in the production of alcohol, starch, dextrin, glucose, and corn oil; and in obtaining bioethanol, bio-gas, etc. [5]. It is cultivated around the globe under very diverse climate and soil conditions [6], found in the northern hemisphere up to 58° (Canada and Russia), in the southern hemisphere up to 42–43° (New Zealand), and between 42° south latitude and 53° northern latitude [7]. Along with wheat and rice, maize provides over 30% of food calories, and is a source of protein in over 90 countries [8,9,10]. Maize is of major economic importance not only due to its high production potential but also because of the diversity of products obtained by cultivating it. However, the soil tillage system plays an important role in the production potential [10]. Worldwide, there are four major maize-producing regions, of which North America is in first place, representing over 30% of global production; followed by China (over 20% of global production); Europe (12% of global production); and South America, which produces 15%, mostly in the territories of Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico [11]. Regarding exports, the United States of America occupies the first place by far, while Romania ranks in sixth place, representing 3.3% of the world exports of this product [10]. Worldwide, it is estimated that unconventional soil tillage systems are practiced on an area of more than 70 million ha [4], most of which is in Latin America, the United States of America, and Australia, with only a small part in other areas of the world.
In Romania, half of the total area cultivated with cereals is occupied by maize; therefore, maize holds one of the first positions in the country’s cereal economy [12]. Compared to other areas of Romania, the Transylvanian Plain has some specific characteristics that can create problems in the cultivation of maize: a deficient rainfall regime, especially in July; a surplus thermal regime and a relatively shorter frost-free interval; climatic diversity; a rugged relief; and soils often with different particularities, even from one plot to another [13]. Knowledge of the scientific developments in agriculture allows for the choice of the latest technologies [14,15,16,17] to meet the requirements of producers and consumers alike [18].
Soil management systems need to be developed to address the emerging issues of the 21st century: global climate change, accelerated soil degradation and desertification, the decline in biodiversity, and the achievement of food security [19,20]. The choice of soil tillage system must take into account the available equipment, the type of soil, and the climatic conditions [21]. According to some authors, conventional tillage systems are the main reason for accelerated soil erosion [22,23]. Plowing, as well as frequent harrowing, results in the depletion of soil nutrients, such as organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium [24].
Research on different soil tillage systems is very popular worldwide, and these systems are increasingly applied by farmers to different crops [15]. The use of a soil tillage system is an essential maize-growing practice for successful production. These systems can significantly influence the yield and nutritional quality of maize via their effects on soil and moisture conservation, temperature, aeration, nutrient availability, and cost and labor savings [15,25].
In research carried out in some regions with a temperate climate, maize yields under no tillage were found to be similar to or lower than those of the conventional tillage system [26,27]. The conventional tillage system allows for a more pronounced mobilization of the soil, oxidation of the organic matter in the soil, and, thus, potentiation of soil fertility. Over time, this action on the soil can lead to soil depletion if we do not intervene with compensatory amounts of organic matter [28]. Minimum tillage and no-tillage systems reduce inputs, making these systems more attractive to farmers. However, these tillage systems do not succeed without suitable equipment, without mulch on the soil surface, and without additional knowledge of their application [16].
It is not only the type of soil but also the soil tillage system and used agricultural machinery that have a major effect on maize yield [16]. In some studies carried out in a region with a temperate climate, it turned out that the maize yields of the NT system were lower than those of CT, but, instead, they had the advantages of better retaining water and increasing the rate of water infiltration, contributing to reducing the input of work and fuel [29,30] after several years of application.
In a long-term experiment in the period of 2005–2016, Simić et al. [31] showed that the grain yield of maize was 10.0, 8.3, and 7.0 t ha−1 under CT, reduced tillage (RT), and NT, respectively, while in dry years, the maize grain yield was higher under reduced tillage than CT. Numerous studies carried out by other authors also showed the effects of soil tillage systems on maize production and its components [32,33].
The mechanization of agricultural practices must be adapted to meet soil protection requirements, and soil and water conservation practices are necessary in many areas due to the soil degradation caused by using only conventional tillage systems for many years [34,35,36]. It is difficult to predict the reaction of the maize crop to the soil tillage system, as the yields are influenced by several factors, such as soil characteristics, the microclimate [37], and the effects of different practices (the degree of soil mobilization, sowing, the equipment used, crop rotation, hybrids, fertilization, weed control, etc. [38,39,40,41,42,43]).
Some studies have shown that unconventional tillage systems are better applied to soil with a high content of organic matter, loamy-textured soils, and well-drained soils [44,45,46]. Research carried out on the chernozem soil type has shown that maize yields are lower in NT and RT than in CT when either crop rotation or continuous maize production is applied [15,47,48]. The hypothesis of the research carried out by us is related to determining the effect of the combination of the soil tillage system with fertilization and the impact of the climatic conditions of the year (taken as an experimental factor).
In this context, the aim of this research is to find a balance between the soil tillage systems and the produced effects on maize yield. In this paper, the results of the research executed under pedoclimatic conditions at the Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda (ARDS Turda, Romania) are presented regarding the behavior of the maize hybrid T 332 cultivated in four tillage systems (a conventional tillage system; minimum tillage with a chisel; minimum tillage with a disk; and no tillage) and two levels of fertilization, during the period of 2016–2022.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

This research was carried out in an agroecosystem in the Transylvanian Plateau. The Transylvanian Plateau is described as a plateau bordered to the south, east, and northeast by the Carpathian Mountains and to the west by the Apuseni Mountains. It consists of hills with heights between 500 and 600 m and wide or short valleys. The existence of valleys and extensive depressions facilitates the easy penetration of air masses from neighboring regions, promoting the occurrence of weather changes and temperature inversions.
The Agricultural Research and Development Station Turda (ARDS Turda), from a geographical point of view, is located in the northwestern part of the Turda municipality (Figure 1 and Figure 2) at a distance of 30 km from Cluj-Napoca and 3 km from the most important traffic artery of Romania DN1-E60-E81. The geographical coordinates of the research station are 46° and 35′ north latitude and 23° and 47′ east longitude Greenwich at an altitude of 345–493 m from the Adriatic Sea.
The general climate of the area is characterized by the values recorded at the Turda Weather Station, defined as a boreal climate with continental characteristics. Ever since 1990, there has been a process of increased warming in our country, and the same thing is happening in Transylvania. Under the conditions of Turda in 1982, the multiannual average temperature was 8.4 °C; in 2007, it increased to 8.9 °C, which could lead to an increase of 2 °C in the next 25 years [49].
The thermal regime is characterized by an annual air average of 9.2 °C, where the warmest month is July with an average monthly temperature of 19.7 °C and the coldest month is January with an average monthly temperature of −3.4 °C. The absolute minimum temperature was −36.5 °C, recorded in the winter of 1963, and the absolute maximum temperature was 38.5 °C, recorded in the summer of 1946 [50].

2.2. Collection and Recording of Weather and Rainfall Data

The temperature and precipitation presented in this paper come from the Turda Weather Station, which is located near the experimental fields. The Turda Weather Station is a subunit of the Northern Transylvania Regional Meteorological Center, part of the Romanian National Meteorological Administration.

2.3. Biological Materials

The biological material used in the experimental study is the simple maize hybrid T 332, creation ARDS Turda, (Figure 3), which was registered in the Official Catalog of Crop Varieties from Romania in 2015 and included in the maturity group FAO 380 [51]. The hybrid presents good tolerance to the low temperatures recorded in the first part of the vegetation period, tolerates periods of drought quite well, and has a medium resistance to the attack of the pest Ostrinia nubilalis [52,53].

2.4. Experimental Design

The present paper presents the results of the research executed under the pedoclimatic conditions at ARDS Turda, tracking the yield of maize under the influence of four variants of tillage and two variants of fertilization during the period of 2016–2022.
Experimental factors:
  • Experimental year: a1, 2016; a2, 2017; a3, 2018; a4, 2019; a5, 2020; a6, 2021; and a7, 2022.
  • Soil tillage system: b1, a conventional tillage system (CT) with plowing (30 cm depth); b2, minimum soil tillage with a chisel (MTC, 30 cm depth); b3, minimum soil tillage with a disk (MTD, 15 cm depth); and b4, no-tillage (NT, direct sowing).
  • Level of fertilization: c1, 350 kg ha−1 NPK 16:16:16 at sowing and c2, 350 kg ha−1 NPK 16:16:16 at sowing + 150 kg ha−1 calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) that contains roughly 8% calcium and 27% nitrogen.

2.5. Technology Used at the Experimental Site

The crops are rotated every three years (soybean, winter wheat, and maize); this rotation is the most frequently used in Romania. The experimental site was located on a clay-illuvial chernozem-type soil [54], with a clay–clay texture (41% clay content), neutral pH (6.9), 2.95% humus content, 0.211% total nitrogen, 23 ppm phosphorus, and 283 ppm potassium [55]. The experimental design used a split-plot method arranged in three repetitions. The area of an experimental plot was 48 m2 (4 m width and 12 m length).
The sequence of works performed according to the experimental variants is presented in Table 1.
The sowing rate was 65,000 plants ha−1, the seeds were treated with the fungicide Maxim XL 035 FS (1.0 L t−1 product based on fludioxonil 25 g L−1 + metalaxyl − M (mefenoxam) 10 g L−1) before sowing, and the sowing distance between rows was 70 cm. Sowing was executed in all systems with an MT-6 seeder (Seeding machinery Maschio Gaspardo MT 6R, Târgu-Mureș, Romania) on the same day; at the same time as sowing, basic fertilization was applied, which was later supplemented by additional fertilization during the phenophase of the maize with 6–7 leaves (intensive phase of absorption of fertilizers). Fertilization variants were established in relation to the requirements of the Green Deal project of the European Commission, which necessitates a reduction in chemical fertilizer doses [56].
Weed control was realized in two stages: in the pre-emergence stage using 0.4 L ha−1 product with isoxaflutol 240 g L−1 and cyprosulfamide (safener) 240 g L−1 + 1.4 L ha−1 based on dimethenamid-P (optically active) 720 g L−1 (Frontier Forte, BASF, Kaiserslautern, Germany) and in the post-emergence stage, during the 3–5 leaf maize phenophase, using 1.0 L ha−1 product based on fluroxypyr 250 g L−1 (Tomigan 250 EC, Adama, Bucharest, Romania) for dicotyledonous weeds + 1.5 L ha−1 based on 40 g L−1 nicosulfuron (Nicogan 40 OD, Adama, Bucharest, Romania) for monocotyledonous weeds.
The maize was harvested with a Wintersteiger experimental plot combine (Wintersteiger AG, Ried im Innkreis, Austria), equipped with maize equipment, during the last 10 days of September and the first 10 days of October in all experimental variants. The grain yield obtained for each experimental variant was weighed and transformed using Romanian Standard Moisture into maize (RSM, 14% for maize).

2.6. Methods for Analysis and Processing of Experimental Data

The yield data were statistically processed using ANOVA [57], and the least significant difference (LSD, 5%, 1%, 0.1%) was established.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Climate Conditions during the Experimental Period

The thermal regime from April to September 2016–2022 is presented in Table 1. The data recorded at the Turda Meteorological Station [58] indicate an increase in monthly temperatures (Table 1), with visible warming of the weather for the entire vegetation period, starting from the emergence phase. The average monthly temperature of April has decreased in the last two years, as recorded by Șimon et al. [59], and is the only exception reported with regard to the average monthly growing season temperatures; the other temperatures exceeded the 65-year multiannual average, with deviations reaching up to 3–3.9 °C in the summer months when the reproductive organs are formed, greatly affecting the productivity elements. The recorded average temperatures of the six months (IV–IX) in almost all experimental years (except for the year 2021, where 16.5 °C was recorded) were above the multi-year average (16.3 °C). In 2018, the warmest period was recorded (an average of 18.8 °C). Maize plants that emerge under conditions where temperatures are lower immediately after emergence have more difficulties in developing, and, at very low temperatures, they fail to absorb nutritional elements, requiring a longer time to form each individual leaf [60]; this is why it is important that after emergence, the temperatures do not drop below 4 °C, a temperature at which the seedlings are affected by the cold, preventing their growth.
In the experimental area, there was an uneven distribution of the amount of precipitation between April and September (Table 2). Deviations from these average values were recorded, with the largest deviations being recorded during the flowering phase. Water stress is another key factor limiting yield, as it is dependent on rainfall conditions.

3.2. Maize Emergence in Relation to the Experimental Factors

In addition to climatic factors, the soil tillage system is of major importance for maize crops. The temperature and rainfall recorded after the sowing date affect the time period until emergence. In unconventional systems where the temperature of the soil is lower, a delay in the emergence of the crop by up to 1–4 days compared to the conventional tillage system has been observed. The lowest number of days from sowing (S) to emergence (E) was recorded in 2018 and 2019, being closely related to the higher temperatures recorded during the sowing period. Furthermore, in the last 3 years, due to the lower spring temperatures in 2021 and 2022 and the reduced precipitation in 2020, there was also a greater number of days between sowing and emergence, reaching up to 24 days (Table 3).

3.3. Maize Yields Obtained in Relation to the Experimental Factors

Climatic changes, especially an increase in temperatures and a lack of precipitation, during the formation of reproductive organs are the main causes of significant production losses [61]. The adaptation of agricultural technologies is among the most accessible methods for reducing the impact of global warming [62]. Variations in environmental conditions during the growing season can have a major effect on crops, and factors such as water stress, heat, or a lack of nutrients during the growing season reduce yields [33,63,64].
After the statistical processing of the experimental data, it was found that the maize yield was significantly influenced by climatic conditions. Compared to the average yields achieved in the seven years (6429 kg ha−1), the differences recorded in the other years showed inferior values in 2016, 2019, and 2022 and superior values in 2018, 2020, and 2021. The lowest yield was obtained in 2022 under the conditions of a prolonged drought and the heat of the summer period (Table 4). A low amount of precipitation, which correlates with high temperatures, causes plants to consume more energy to achieve significant increases in yield [65], with climatic conditions still being the most important factor determining crop yields [66].
For maize, temperatures exceeding 32 °C during the pollination period are a factor that causes significant yield losses. As Cairns [67] also states, heat stress alone or in combination with drought is a major constraint on maize yield. The amount of precipitation, especially its distribution throughout the growing season, is also of great importance in terms of yield because the maize crop in the Transylvanian Plain is dependent on precipitation [23], as precipitation and groundwater are the only sources of water available to plants throughout the year. In this study, the importance of the rainfall distribution is highlighted by the yield achieved. The yield results obtained during the period of 2016–2022 show that the highest yield was obtained in the years when the amount of water was more evenly distributed during the growing season, even if the annual amount was lower.
In the CT control variant, the yield achieved (7306 kg ha−1) recorded a value close to that obtained in the MTC system (7231 kg ha−1) and superior to that obtained in the MTD (6154 kg ha−1) and NT variants (5026 kg ha−1); these had a very significantly negative influence on the harvest, with the differences being between 1153 and 2280 kg ha−1 (Table 5). The data obtained show that, under the soil conditions of Turda (with a clay texture), in terms of the depth of the tillage, for good development, the maize needs well-processed soil to develop its root system. Although some studies suggest that seeding in no-till or tilled land benefits yield, the results obtained in this study, as well as those obtained by Pittelkow et al. [68], argue that minimum tillage and no tillage should be combined with other conservation agricultural measures to exercise a positive effect on yield. In the research carried out by Wang et al. [69], it emerged that the no-tillage system had no significant effect on maize yield. However, following the research carried out by Liu et al. [70] in a semi-arid area of the Loess Plateau of China from 2014 to 2016, it was concluded that applying the no-tillage system increases the water capacity and bulk density of the soil, but soil porosity and maize yield are reduced.
Maize is a nutrient-consuming plant, consuming nitrogen in particular, but the application of nitrogen at high doses can create an imbalance in the soil reaction [71], as high nitrogen fertilization creates a higher acidifying potential. The beneficial effects of additional fertilization with calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) are better plant development and an increased yield. A difference of 374 kg ha−1 compared to the variant with basic fertilization (control) presents a very significantly positive statistical result (Table 6). Moreover, other studies, including a study by Masood et al. [72], mention the effectiveness of CAN fertilizers in increasing maize yield.
From the interaction of factors, namely experimental year x soil tillage system, yield differences were recorded annually between the four tillage systems and the CT control variant, with the variants of minimum tillage with a disk and no-tillage presenting very significantly negative statistical results. In the MTC variant, the differences are below 150 kg ha−1 and do not present statistical significance. The yields obtained in CT and MTC throughout the research period have very similar values, which suggests the suitability of maize cultivation in the variant without plowing (Table 7).
Variations in temperatures and precipitation can have both positive and negative impacts on maize yield [73]. In the case of an increase in temperature during the vegetation period, which correlates with a reduced amount of rainfall, the maize yield is affected, even if other methods of reducing the impact are considered, such as the use of unconventional soil tillage systems or the changing of the sowing date. With several factors interacting and crop yields varying from year to year under the influence of meteorological factors, it is difficult to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of soil tillage methods [74] or other factors involved when using technology. Wang et al. [75] found that, although unconventional soil tillage systems do not play a significant role in improving yield, the benefits of the systems on soil health are still evident [76,77,78]. Optimal temperature ratios and water availability allow for the maximum yield to be obtained. After more than 30 years of observation, a strong positive correlation was revealed between corn production and the amount of precipitation, and a negative correlation was revealed with the sum of temperatures [79]. Thus, it can be stated that temperatures and precipitation during the vegetation period, which do not fall within the requirements of the crop, are the most important factors on which the yield of an agricultural crop depends [80,81,82].
Climatic conditions and technological factors are particularly important elements for any crop [62,83], but they are especially important for achieving a good maize yield [84]. Although the maize plant has a deep root system and can reach considerable soil depths, during the first phenophases, it still has high requirements for soil tillage. This statement can be clearly seen from the data presented in Table 8. The yields obtained in the MTD and NT systems in most years have distinctly significant or very significantly negative differences compared to those of the control. Regarding the MTC system, we can note that, except for in 2017, compared to CT, there are no statistically significant differences. Therefore, we can say that, under the climatic conditions of the Transylvanian Plain or under similar conditions, the MTC system could be a viable alternative to the CT system for maize crops. We must also bear in mind that the MTC system can also lead to a reduction in fuel consumption.

4. Conclusions

The experimental results obtained between 2016 and 2022 highlight the fact that under the conditions of chernozem soils with a high clay content in the Transylvanian Plain area, cultivating maize with superficial soil mobilization or no tillage using a Seeder Maschio Gaspardo MT 6R is not suitable, as maize requires deeper mobilization (and agricultural machines capable of doing this), and the yield data confirm this fact. The MTC system can be considered an alternative to CT, as the yield difference between the two systems is insignificant (below 100 kg ha−1). Additional fertilization with calcium ammonium nitrate increases the yield by about 380 kg ha−1. The success of the maize crop depends on the climatic conditions and the realization of quality sowing, with the soil moisture and the temperatures at sowing being particularly important due to their influence on the emergence and density of the crop and the distribution of rainfall from June to July in particular affects the yield of maize.
The measures recommended following this research, including for future research, are related to the introduction of new agricultural machines for minimum soil tillage and no-tillage, as well as other elements of agricultural technology to limit and counteract the effects of drought periods, being able to be adapted according to the particularities of the geographical area and pedoclimatic conditions. Such measures refer to the following: the use of a biological material that shows resistance to water and thermal stress; the use of agrotechnical measures favorable for the accumulation, conservation, and effective utilization of water from precipitation; the use of a conservative farming system based on protecting the soil and avoiding desertification; the identification of areas vulnerable to climate change; and the use of biological material that presents biological characteristics and pedoclimatic requirements specific to the new climatic trends of areas vulnerable to climate risks.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C. and C.C.; methodology, T.R.; software, A.Ș.; validation, A.O.C. and F.C.; formal analysis, T.R.; investigation, M.B. and A.T.; resources, A.-M.V.; data curation, A.-M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C.; writing—review and editing, T.R.; visualization, F.C.; supervision, T.R.; project administration, F.C.; funding acquisition, C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, by project ADER 20.1.3, Contract no. 20.1.3/2023, from the Sectoral Plan 2023–2026.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ramadhan, M.N. Yield and Yield Components of Maize and Soil Physical Properties as Affected by Tillage Practices and Organic Mulching. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 7152–7159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Călugăr, R.E.; Muntean, E.; Varga, A.; Vana, C.D.; Haș, V.; Tritean, N.; Ceclan, L.A. Improving the Carotenoid Content in Maize by Using Isonuclear Lines. Plants 2022, 11, 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Liu, G.; Yang, Y.; Guo, X.; Liu, W.; Xie, R.; Ming, B.; Hue, J.; Wang, K.; Li, S.; Hou, P. A Global Analysis of Dry Matter Accumulation and Allocation for Maize Yield Breakthrough from 1.0 to 25.0 Mg ha−1. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 188, 106656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barșon, G.; Șopterean, L.; Suciu, L.A.; Crișan, I.; Duda, M.M. Evaluation of Agronomic Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) under a Fertilization Gradient in Transylvanian Plain. Agriculture 2021, 11, 896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Scott, M.P.; Edwards, J.W.; Bell, C.P.; Schussler, J.R.; Smith, J.S. Grain Composition and Amino Acid Content in Maize Hybrids Representing 80 Years of Commercial Maize Varieties. Maydica 2006, 51, 417–423. Available online: https://hygeia-analytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Scott-et-al.-2006-corn-protein-amino-acids-historical-comparisons.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  6. Erenstein, O.; Jaleta, M.; Sonder, K.; Mottaleb, K.; Prasanna, B.M. Global Maize Production, Consumption and Trade: Trends and R&D Implications. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 1295–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Petcu, G.; Petcu, E. Technology Guide for Wheat, Maize and Sunflower; Dominor: Bucharest, Romania, 2008; pp. 54–96. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elena-Petcu/publication/308793571_Ghid_tehnologic_pentru_grau_porumb_si_floarea-soarelui/links/57f2507808ae8da3ce5170cb/Ghid-tehnologic-pentru-grau-porumb-si-floarea-soarelui.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023)ISBN 978-973-1838-48-9.
  8. Shiferaw, B.; Prasanna, B.M.; Hellin, J.; Bänziger, M. Crops that Feed the World 6. Past Successes and Future Challenges to the Role Played by Maize in Global Food Security. Food Secur. 2011, 3, 307–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Amegbor, I.; van Biljon, A.; Shargie, N.; Tarekegne, A.; Labuschagne, M. Identifying Quality Protein Maize Inbred Lines for Improved Nutritional Value of Maize in Southern Africa. Foods 2022, 11, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dragomir, V.; Brumă, I.S.; Butu, A.; Petcu, V.; Tanasă, L.; Horhocea, D. An Overview of Global Maize Market Compared to Romanian Production. Rom. Agric. Res. 2022, 39, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Eurostat Database. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  12. Popescu, M.; Mureşan, C.; Horhocea, D.; Cindea, M.; Cristea, S. The Genetic Potential for the Grain Yield of Some Maize Hybrids, Studied in Different Conditions of Environment, in Romania. Rom. Agric. Res. 2021, 38, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Haş, V.; Haș, I.; Copândean, A.; Nagy, E. Turda 248-Maize Hybrid of Perspective for Transylvanian Area. An. Inst. Naț. Cercet.-Dezvoltare Agric. Fundulea 2012, 80, 59–68. Available online: https://www.incda-fundulea.ro/anale/80/80.6.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  14. Dhanaraju, M.; Chenniappan, P.; Ramalingam, K.; Pazhanivelan, S.; Kaliaperumal, R. Smart Farming: Internet of Things (IoT)-Based Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tripodi, P.; Massa, D.; Venezia, A.; Cardi, T. Sensing Technologies for Precision Phenotyping in Vegetable Crops: Current Status and Future Challenges. Agronomy 2018, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ferrández-Pastor, F.J.; García-Chamizo, J.M.; Nieto-Hidalgo, M.; Mora-Martínez, J. Precision Agriculture Design Method Using a Distributed Computing Architecture on Internet of Things Context. Sensors 2018, 18, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Feleke, H.G.; Savage, M.J.; Fantaye, K.T.; Rettie, F.M. The Role of Crop Management Practices and Adaptation Options to Minimize the Impact of Climate Change on Maize (Zea mays L.) Production for Ethiopia. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wahid, A.; Gelani, S.; Ashraf, M.; Foolad, M.R. Heat Tolerance in Plants: An Overview. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 61, 199–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.C.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the Plow over 10,000 Years and the Rationale for No-till Farming. Soil. Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Videnović, Ž.; Simić, M.; Srdić, J.; Dumanović, Z. Long Term Effects of Different Soil Tillage Systems on Maize (Zea mays L.) Yields. Plant Soil. Environ. 2011, 57, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, S.; Zhang, X.Y.; Yang, J.Y.; Drury, C.F. Effect of Conservation Tillage on Soil Physical Properties, Water Storage and Water Use Efficiency in Northeast China. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2013, 63, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shao, Y.; Xie, Y.; Wang, C.; Yue, J.; Yao, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, W.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, T. Effects of Different Soil Conservation Tillage Approaches on Soil Nutrients, Water Use and Wheat-Maize Yield in Rainfed Dry-Land Regions of North China. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 81, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kiboi, M.; Ngetich, K.; Diels, J.; Mucheru-Muna, M.; Mugwe, J.; Mugendi, D.N. Minimum Tillage, Tied Ridging and Mulching for Better Maize Yield and Yield Stability in the Central Highlands of Kenya. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 170, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Atreya, K.; Sharma, S.; Bajracharya, R.M.; Rajbhandari, N.P. Applications of Reduced Tillage in Hills of Central Nepal. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 88, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Simić, M.; Dragičević, V.; Drinić, S.M.; Vukadinović, J.; Kresović, B.; Tabaković, M.; Brankov, M. The Contribution of Soil Tillage and Nitrogen Rate to the Quality of Maize Grain. Agronomy 2020, 10, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Drury, C.F.; Reynolds, W.D.; Yang, X.M.; McLaughlin, N.B.; Welacky, T.W.; Weaver, C.W.; Grant, C.A. Nitrogen Source, Application Time, and Tillage Effects on Soil Nitrous Oxide Emission and Corn Grain Yields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011, 76, 1268–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gruber, S.; Pekrun, C.; Mohring, J.; Claupein, W. Long-Term Yield and Weed Response to Conservation and Stubble Tillage in SW Germany. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 121, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Drury, C.F.; Tan, C.S.; Welacky, T.W.; Oloya, T.O.; Hamill, A.S.; Weaver, S.E. Red Clover and Tillage Influence on Soil Temperature, Water Content, and Corn Emergence. Agron. J. 1999, 91, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sharma, P.; Abrol, V.; Sharma, R.K. Impact of Tillage and Mulch Management on Economics, Energy Requirement and Crop Performance in Maize-Wheat Rotation in Rainfed Subhumid Inceptisols, India. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 34, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Drury, C.F.; Reynolds, W.D.; Welacky, T.W.; Weaver, S.E.; Hamill, A.S.; Vyn, T.J. Impacts of Zone Tillage and Red Clover on Corn Performance and Soil Physical Quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2003, 67, 867–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Simić, M.; Dragičević, V.; Kresović, B.; Kovačević, D.; Dolijanović, Ž.; Brankov, M. The Effectiveness of Soil Tillage Systems in Maize Cultivation under Variable Meteorological Conditions of Central Serbia. In Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Agriculture Symposium “Agrosym 2019”, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 3–6 October 2019; Kovačević, D., Ed.; University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture: East Sarajevo, Republic of Srpska, 2019; pp. 574–579. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, X.; Zhou, B.; Sun, X.; Yue, Y.; Ma, W.; Zhao, M. Soil Tillage Management Affects Maize Grain Yield by Regulating Spatial Distribution Coordination of Roots, Soil Moisture and Nitrogen Status. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0129231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wasaya, A.; Tahir, M.; Ali, H.; Hussaina, M.; Yasir, T.A.; Sher, A.; Ijaz, M.; Sattar, A. Influence of Varying Tillage Systems and Nitrogen Application on Crop Allometry, Chlorophyll Contents, Biomass Production and Net Returns of Maize (Zea mays L.). Soil. Tillage Res. 2017, 170, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lee, D.R. Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and Policies for Developing Countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 5, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kassie, M.; Pender, J.; Yesuf, M.; Kohlin, G.; Bluffstone, R.; Elias, M. Estimating Returns to Soil Conservation Adoption in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands. Agric. Econ. 2008, 38, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.A. Global Synthesis of Drought Effects on Maize and Wheat Production. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Yosefi, K.; Galavi, M.; Ramrodi, M.; Mousavi, S.R. Effect of Bio-phosphate and Chemical Phosphorus Fertilizer Accompanied with Micronutrient Foliar Application on Growth, Yield and Yield Components of Maize (Single cross 704). Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, S.X.; Chen, X.; Jia, S.; Liang, A.; Zhang, X.; Yang, X.; Wei, S.; Sun, B.; Huang, D.; Zhou, G. The Potential Mechanism of Long-term Conservation Tillage Effects on Maize Yield in the Black Soil of Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 154, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bian, D.H.; Jia, G.; Cai, L.; Ma, Z.; Eneji, A.E.; Cui, Y. Effects of Tillage Practices on Root Characteristics and Root Lodging Resistance of Maize. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 185, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ragheb, E.E. Sweet Corn as Affected by Foliar Application with Amin—And Humic Acids under Different Fertilizer Sources. Egypt J. Hortic. 2016, 43, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cheţan, F.; Cheţan, C.; Russu, F.; Mureşanu, F. The Influence of Tillage System on the Weed and the Maize Yields, Specific to Different Pedoclimatic Conditions in Transylvanian Plain, 2007–2018. Rom. Agric. Res. 2020, 37, 131–193. [Google Scholar]
  43. Cheţan, F.; Rusu, T.; Călugăr, R.E.; Chețan, C.; Şimon, A.; Ceclan, A.; Bărdaș, M.; Mintaș, O.S. Research on the Interdependence Linkages between Soil Tillage Systems and Climate Factors on Maize Crop. Land 2022, 11, 1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dick, W.A.; Edwards, W.M.; McCoy, E.L. Continuous Application of No-tillage to Ohio Soils: Changes in Crop Yields and Organic Matter—Related Soil Properties. In Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems. Long-Term Experiments in North America; Paul, E.A., Paustian, K., Elliot, E.T., Cole, C.V., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997; pp. 171–182. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hill, P. Crop Response to Tillage System. In Conservation Tillage Systems and Management; Reeder, R., Ed.; MidWest Plan Service: Ames, IA, USA, 2000; pp. 47–60. [Google Scholar]
  46. Duiker, S.W.; Haldeman, J.F.; Johnson, D.H. Tillage × Maize Hybrid Interactions. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pederson, P.; Lauer, J.G. Corn and Soybean Response to Rotation Sequence, Row Spacing, and Tillage System. Agron. J. 2003, 95, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Boomsma, C.R.; Santini, J.B.; West, T.D.; Brewer, J.C.; McIntyre, L.M.; Vyn, T.J. Maize Grain Yield Responses to Plant Height Variability Resulting from Crop Rotation and Tillage System in Long-term Experiment. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 106, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Malschi, D. Environment–Agriculture–Sustainable Development and the Integrated Management of Pests of Cereal AgroecoSystems; Ed. Argonaut: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2007; p. 186. ISBN 978-973-109-086-3. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kadar, R.; Mureșanu, F.; Tritean, N. The natural framework in which the research was carried out, the structure of the cultures of the Transylvanian Plain. In Encouraging Innovation, Cooperation and the Creation of a Knowledge Base in the Rural Areas of Cluj County; 2019; pp. 6–9. ISBN 978-973-0-28287-0. [Google Scholar]
  51. Official Catalog of Varieties. Available online: https://istis.ro/image/data/download/catalog-oficial/catalog_2015.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  52. Haș, V.; Haș, I.; Copândean, A.; Mureșanu, F.; Varga, A.; Șut, R.; Rotar, C.; Șopterean, L.; Grigore, G. Behavior of Some New Maize Hybrids Released at ARDS Turda. Analele Inst. Naț. Cercet.-Dezvoltare Agric. Fundulea 2014, 82, 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  53. Malschi, D.; Mureșanu, F.; Tărău, A.D.; Vălean, A.M. Contributions of Scientific Research to the Development of Agriculture, ARDS Turda 60-Year Tribute Volume, 2017. Six Decades of Research Aimed at Preventing and Combating Pests in Field Crops at ARDS Turda; Tip Interarte: Turda, Romania, 2017; Volume VII, pp. 285–307. ISBN 978-973-0-24362-8. [Google Scholar]
  54. SRTS. Romanian System of Soil Taxonomy; Estfalia: Bucharest, Romania, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chețan, F.; Chețan, C.; Bogdan, I.; Moraru, P.I.; Pop, A.I.; Rusu, T. Use of Vegetable Residues and Cover Crops in the Cultivation of Maize Grown in Different Tillage Systems. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_ro (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  57. PoliFact. ANOVA and Duncan’s Test PC Program for Variant Analyses Made for Completely Randomized Polyfactorial Experiences; USAMV: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  58. Bărdaş, M.; Rusu, T.; Russu, F.; Șimon, A.; Chețan, F.; Ceclan, O.A.; Rezi, R.; Popa, A.; Cărbunar, M.M. The Impact of Foliar Fertilization on the Physiological Parameters, Yield, and Quality Indices of the Soybean Crop. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Șimon, A.; Moraru, P.I.; Ceclan, A.; Russu, F.; Chețan, F.; Bărdaș, M.; Popa, A.; Rusu, T.; Pop, A.I.; Bogdan, I. The Impact of Climatic Factors on the Development Stages of Maize Crop in the Transylvanian Plain. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Șimon, A.; Ceclan, A.; Haș, V.; Varga, A.; Russu, F.; Chețan, F.; Bărdaș, M. Evaluation of the Impact of Sowing Season and Weather Conditions on Maize Yield. AgroLife Sci. J. 2023, 12, 1. [Google Scholar]
  61. Jama, A.O.; Ottman, M.J. Timing of the First Irrigation in Corn and Water Stress Conditioning. Agron. J. 1993, 85, 1159–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ali, S.; Ghosh, B.C.; Osmani, A.G.; Hossain, E.; Fogarassy, C. Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Reducing the Risk of Rice Production: Evidence from Rajshahi District in Bangladesh. Agronomy 2021, 11, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Robins, J.S.; Domingo, C.E. Some Effects of Severe Soil Moisture Deficits at Specific Growth Stages in Corn. Agron. J. 1953, 45, 618–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Setter, T.L.; Flannigan, B.; Melkonian, J. Loss of Kernel Set Due to Water Deficit and Shade in Maize. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1530–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Popa, A.; Rusu, T.; Șimon, A.; Russu, F.; Bărdaș, M.; Oltean, V.; Suciu, L.; Tărău, A.; Merca, N.C. Influence of Biotic and Abiotic Factors on Maize Crop Yield in Transylvanian Plain Conditions. Sci. Papers Ser. A Agron. 2021, 64, 103–113. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bakucs, Z.; Fertő, I.; Vígh, E. Crop Productivity and Climatic Conditions: Evidence from Hungary. Agriculture 2020, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cairns, J.E.; Crossa, J.; Zaidi, P.H.; Grudloyma, P.; Sanchez, C.; Araus, J.L.; Thaitad, S.; Makumbi, D.; Magorokosho, C.; Bänziger, M.; et al. Identification of Drought, Heat, and Combined Drought and Heat Tolerant Donors in Maize. Crop Sci. 2013, 53, 1335–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pittelkow, C.M.; Linquist, B.A.; Lundy, M.E.; Liang, X.Q.; Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, C.K. When Does No-till Yield More? A Global Meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 183, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, H.; Wang, S.; Yu, Q.; Zhang, Y.J.; Wang, R.; Li, J.; Wang, X.L. Ploughing/Zero-tillage Rotation Regulates Soil Physicochemical Properties and Improves Productivity of Erodible Soil in a Residue Return Farming System. Land Degrad. Dev. 2021, 32, 1833–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Liu, S.; Gao, Y.; Lang, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, H. Effects of Conventional Tillage and No-Tillage Systems on Maize (Zea mays L.) Growth and Yield, Soil Structure, and Water in Loess Plateau of China: Field Experiment and Modeling Studies. Land 2022, 11, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rusu, M.; Mihai, M.; Mihai, V.C.; Moldovan, L.; Ceclan, O.A.; Toader, C. Areas of Agrochemical Deepening Resulting from Long-Term Experiments with Fertilizers—Synthesis Following 20 Years of Annual and Stationary Fertilization. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Masood, S.; Suleman, M.; Hussain, S.; Jamil, M.; Ashraf, M.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Nazar, R.; Khan, N.; Jehan, S.; Khan, K.S.; et al. Fertilizers Containing Balanced Proportions of NH4+-N and NO3−-N Enhance Maize (Zea mays L.) Yield Due to Improved Nitrogen Recovery Efficiency. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, X.; Takahash, T.; Suzuki, N.; Kaiser, H.M. The Impact of Climate Change on Maize Yields in the United States and China. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pede, T.; Mountrakis, G.; Shaw, S.B. Improving Corn Yield Prediction Across the US Corn Belt by Replacing Air Temperature with Daily MODIS Land Surface Temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 276–277, 107615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, T.; Ren, W.; Yang, F.; Niu, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, M. Effects of Different Tillage and Residue Retention Measures on Silage Maize Yield and Quality and Soil Phosphorus in Karst Areas. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cárceles Rodríguez, B.; Durán-Zuazo, V.H.; Soriano Rodríguez, M.; García-Tejero, I.F.; Gálvez Ruiz, B.; Cuadros Tavira, S. Conservation Agriculture as a Sustainable System for Soil Health: A Review. Soil Syst. 2022, 6, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fuentes, M.; Govaerts, B.; De Leon, F.; Hidalgo, C.; Dendooven, L.; Sayre, K.D.; Etchevers, J. Fourteen Years of Applying Zero and Conventional Tillage, Crop Rotation and Residue Management Systems and its Effect on Physical and Chemical Soil Quality. Eur. J. Agron. 2009, 30, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. So, H.B.; Grabski, A.; Desborough, P. The Impact of 14 Years of Conventional and No-till Cultivation on the Physical Properties and Crop Yields of a Loam Soil at Grafton NSW, Australia. Soil. Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gaevaya, E.; Ilyinskaya, I.; Bezuglova, O.; Klimenko, A.; Taradin, S.; Nezhinskaya, E.; Mishchenko, A.; Gorovtsov, A. Influence of Heat Stress and Water Availability on Productivity of Silage Maize (Zea mays L.) under Different Tillage and Fertilizer Management Practices in Rostov Region of Russia. Agronomy 2023, 13, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Skendžić, S.; Zovko, M.; Živković, I.P.; Lešić, V.; Lemić, D. The Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Insect Pests. Insects 2021, 12, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Raza, A.; Razzaq, A.; Mehmood, S.S.; Zou, X.; Zhang, X.; Lv, Y.; Xu, J. Impact of Climate Change on Crop Adaptation and Strategies to Tackle its Outcome: A Review. Plants 2019, 8, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Paudel, S.; Shaw, R. The Relationships between Climate Variability and Crop Yield in a Mountainous Environment: A Case Study in Lamjung District, Nepal. Climate 2016, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Václav, N.; Šařec, P.; Křížová, K.; Novák, P.; Látal, O. Soil Physical Properties and Crop Status under Cattle Manure and Z’Fix in Haplic Chernozem. Plant Soil Environ. 2021, 67, 390–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Petrović, G.; Ivanović, T.; Knežević, D.; Radosavac, A.; Obhođaš, I.; Brzaković, T.; Golić, Z.; Dragičević Radičević, T. Assess-ment of Climate Change Impact on Maize Production in Serbia. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 02046 g001
Figure 1. Location of ARDS Turda.
Figure 1. Location of ARDS Turda.
Land 12 02046 g001
Land 12 02046 g002
Figure 2. Experimental fields of ARDS Turda.
Figure 2. Experimental fields of ARDS Turda.
Land 12 02046 g002
Land 12 02046 g003
Figure 3. Turda 332 maize hybrid.
Figure 3. Turda 332 maize hybrid.
Land 12 02046 g003
Table 1. The sequence of works performed in the experimental field.
Table 1. The sequence of works performed in the experimental field.
No.Work PeriodSoil TillageAgrotechnical WorkAggregate Used
1.The last 10 days of October CSPlowing (30 cm depth)Plow Kuhn Multi-Master 125T + tractor John Deere 6620SE
2.The last 10 days of October MTCChisel (30 cm depth)Chisel Pinocchio Gaspardo + tractor John Deere 6620SE
3The last 10 days of OctoberMTDDisking (15 cm deep)Disk GDU Gaspardo 3.4 + tractor John Deere 6620SE
4.The first 10 days of AprilCS, MTC, MTDWorking with rotary harrowRotary Harrow Kuhn HRB 403 D + tractor John Deere 6620SE
CS, MTC, MTD, NTSowing + fertilized ISeeder Maschio Gaspardo MT 6R + tractor John Deere 6620 SE
CS, MTC, MTD, NTPre-emergent weed control on the soilHerbicide machine MET 1500 + tractor John Deere 6620 SE
5.The last 10 days of MayCS, MTC, MTD, NTWeed control on vegetationHerbicide machine MET 1500 + tractor John Deere 6620 SE
6.The first 10 days of JuneCS, MTC, MTD, NTFertilized IIGaspardo Zeno + tractor John Deere 6620 SE
7.OctoberCS, MTC, MTD, NTHarvestExperimental combine Wintersteiger (Wintersteiger AG, Austria)
Table 2. Average monthly temperatures and rainfall for the period of April–September.
Table 2. Average monthly temperatures and rainfall for the period of April–September.
Monthly Temperature (°C)
Year/MonthIVVVIVIIVIIIIXAverage IV–IX
201612.414.319.820.519.617.117.3
20179.915.720.720.322.315.817.5
201815.318.719.420.422.316.718.8
201911.313.621.820.422.117.117.7
202010.313.719.120.221.517.817.1
20217.814.119.822.719.715.016.5
20228.816.321.123.122.314.317.7
65-year average 10.015.018.119.919.515.216.3
Monthly Rainfall (mm)
Year/MonthIVVVIVIIVIIIIXSum IV–IX
201662.290.4123.2124.991.024.6516.3
201765.265.430.6110.236.156.2363.7
201826.256.898.385.738.229.8335.0
201962.6152.468.83563.819.4402.0
202017.844.4166.686.85857.4431.0
202138.480.845.0123.152.939.1379.3
202242.582.941.825.294.6119.9406.9
65-year average45.669.484.678.056.142.4376.1
Table 3. Influence of soil tillage system and climatic conditions on crop emergence, 2016–2022.
Table 3. Influence of soil tillage system and climatic conditions on crop emergence, 2016–2022.
Year 2016201720182019202020212022
Tillage SystemSESESESESESESE
CT19.0403.0521.0405.0504.0515.0516.0427.0415.0404.0523.0407.0503.0425.04
MTC19.0403.0521.0405.0504.0515.0516.0428.0415.0404.0523.0407.0503.0420.04
MTD19.0402.0521.0407.0504.0516.0516.0426.0415.0406.0523.0408.0503.0421.04
NT19.0402.0521.0406.0504.0516.0516.0429.0415.0407.0523.0411.0503.0426.04
No. days13–1415–1712–1312–1421–2315–1918–24
Note: CT = conventional tillage; MTC = minimum tillage with a chisel; MTD = minimum tillage with a disk; NT = no-tillage; S = sowing data; E = emergence data; No. days = number of days from the sowing date until emergence.
Table 4. Maize yield obtained in 2016–2022 years.
Table 4. Maize yield obtained in 2016–2022 years.
Experimental FactorYield (kg ha−1)%Difference, ± Control (kg ha−1)
A-Experimental yeara0 year average6429100control
a1 2016618696−243 00
a2 20176648103218 *
a3 20186996109566 ***
a4 2019620297−228 0
a5 20207354114925 ***
a6 20216809106379 **
a7 2022481175−1618 000
LSD (p 5%) = 158 kg ha−1; LSD (p 1%) = 240 kg ha−1; LSD (p 0.1%)= 389 kg ha−1
Note: 000, *** = significant at 0.001% (negative and positive); 00, ** = significant at 0.01%; 0, *= significant at 0.05% (negative and positive).
Table 5. Influence of soil tillage system on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Table 5. Influence of soil tillage system on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Experimental FactorYield (kg ha−1)%Difference, ± Control (kg ha−1)
B- Soil tillage systemb1 CT7306100control
b2 MTC723199−75 ns
b3 MTD615484−1153 000
b4 NT502667−2280 000
LSD (p 5%) = 91 kg ha−1; LSD (p 1%) = 124 kg ha−1; LSD (p 0.1%) = 168 kg ha−1
Note: CT = conventional tillage; MTC = minimum tillage with a chisel; MTD = minimum tillage with a disk; NT = no-tillage; ns = not significant; 000 = 0.001% p-value significant, negative values.
Table 6. Influence of fertilization on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Table 6. Influence of fertilization on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Experimental FactorYield (kg ha−1)%Difference, ± Control
(kg ha−1)
C-Level of fertilizationc1 N56P56K566242100control
c2 N56P56K56 + N40,5 CaO126616106374 ***
LSD (p 5%) = 55 kg ha−1; LSD (p 1%) = 74 kg ha−1; LSD (p 0.1%) = 99 kg ha−1
Note: *** 0.001 p-value significant, positive values.
Table 7. The influence of the interaction of experimental year × soil tillage system factors on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Table 7. The influence of the interaction of experimental year × soil tillage system factors on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Experimental FactorYield (kg ha−1)%Difference, ± Control (kg ha−1)
2016CT7063100control
MTC691498−149 ns
MTD597085−1093 000
NT479868−2264 000
2017CT7922100control
MTC766897−255 0
MTD610277−1820 000
NT489962−3023 000
2018CT8127100control
MTC819010163 ns
MTD651580−1612 000
NT515063−2977 000
2019CT6637100control
MTC6632100−5 ns
MTD622994−408 00
NT530980−1328 000
2020CT8481100control
MTC838499−97 ns
MTD679680−1686 000
NT575668−2725 000
2021CT7599100control
MTC761910020 ns
MTD688891−711 000
NT512868−2471 000
2022CT5315100control
MTC521298−103 ns
MTD457586−741 000
NT414278−1173 000
LSD (p 5%) = 242 kg ha−1; LSD (p 1%) = 329 kg ha−1; LSD (p 0.1%) = 444 kg ha−1
Note: CT = conventional tillage; MTC = minimum tillage with a chisel; MTD = minimum tillage with a disk; NT = no-tillage; ns = not significant; 000 = 0.001% p-value significant; 00 = significant at 0.01%; 0 = significant at 0.05% (negative values).
Table 8. The influence of the interaction of soil tillage system × experimental year × fertilization factors on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Table 8. The influence of the interaction of soil tillage system × experimental year × fertilization factors on maize yield, 2016–2022.
Experimental FactorYield (kg ha−1)%Difference, ± Control
(kg ha−1)		Duncan Test
B1A1C16779100controlNML
B2663398−146 nsONM
B3583186−948 000S
B4464067−2139 000X
B1A1C27347100controlJI
B2719598−152 nsKJI
B3610983−1238 000SRQ
B4495868−2389 000XWU
B1A2C17708100controlHG
B2736796−341 0JI
B3595777−1751 000SR
B4464160−3067 000X
B1A2C28137100controlFEDC
B2796998−169 nsGFED
B3624877−1890 000RQP
B4515763−2981 000WVUT
B1A3C17884100controlGFE
B27994101110 nsGFED
B3640481−1481 000QPO
B4493963−2946 000XWU
B1A3C28370100controlCB
B2838710017 nsCBA
B3662779−1743 000ONM
B4536264−3008 000UT
B1A4C16497100controlPONM
B2645199−46 nsPON
B3611394−384 0SRQ
B4516079−1337 000WVUT
B1A4C26777100controlNML
B2681310136 nsML
B3634694−432 00QPO
B4545881−1320 000T
B1A5C18275100controlDCB
B2819299−83 nsEDC
B3661580−1660 000ONM
B4549466−2781 000T
B1A5C28688100controlA
B2857798−112 nsBA
B3697680−1712 000LK
B4601869−2670 000SR
B1A6C17375100controlJI
B27499102124 nsIH
B3660890−767 000ONM
B4506267−2313 000WUT
B1A6C27824100controlGF
B2774099−84 nsHG
B3716992−655 000KJI
B4519466−2630 000WVUT
B1A7C15226100controlVUT
B25216100−10 nsWVUT
B3426982−957 000Y
B4395976−1267 000Z
B1A7C25405100controlT
B2520996−197 nsWVUT
B3488190−524 00XW
B4432580−1080 000Y
LSD (p 5%) = 317.90 kg ha−1; LSD (p 1%) = 430.61 kg ha−1; LSD (p 0.1%) = 577.58 kg ha−1
Note: ns = not significant; 000 = 0.001% p-value significant; 00 = significant at 0.01%; 0 = significant at 0.05% (negative values).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chețan, F.; Rusu, T.; Chețan, C.; Șimon, A.; Vălean, A.-M.; Ceclan, A.O.; Bărdaș, M.; Tărău, A. Application of Unconventional Tillage Systems to Maize Cultivation and Measures for Rational Use of Agricultural Lands. Land 2023, 12, 2046. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112046

AMA Style

Chețan F, Rusu T, Chețan C, Șimon A, Vălean A-M, Ceclan AO, Bărdaș M, Tărău A. Application of Unconventional Tillage Systems to Maize Cultivation and Measures for Rational Use of Agricultural Lands. Land. 2023; 12(11):2046. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112046

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chețan, Felicia, Teodor Rusu, Cornel Chețan, Alina Șimon, Ana-Maria Vălean, Adrian Ovidiu Ceclan, Marius Bărdaș, and Adina Tărău. 2023. "Application of Unconventional Tillage Systems to Maize Cultivation and Measures for Rational Use of Agricultural Lands" Land 12, no. 11: 2046. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112046

APA Style

Chețan, F., Rusu, T., Chețan, C., Șimon, A., Vălean, A. -M., Ceclan, A. O., Bărdaș, M., & Tărău, A. (2023). Application of Unconventional Tillage Systems to Maize Cultivation and Measures for Rational Use of Agricultural Lands. Land, 12(11), 2046. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112046

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop