Investigation of the long-term effects of conservation tillage systems on the quality of clay-loamy soil in the Eastern Slovak Lowland · Knowledge Library
Understanding the factors influencing soil quality is essential for implementing sustainable management practices that ensure long-term agricultural productivity and ecosystem resilience. The four-crop rotation was established in 2005 at the experimental station of the Agroecology Research Institute in Slovakia, where the effects of conventional (CT) and conservation (reduced tillage – RT, and no tillage—NT) systems on the quality (physical, chemical, biological parameters) of clay-loamy soil (Gleyic Fluvisols) were compared. During the 2023–2025 study period, the research focused on two crops within the rotation, namely maize and soya. In topsoil, accumulation of soil organic carbon and nutrients was observed in conservation tillage systems. Reduced tillage alleviated soil compaction compared to conventional and no tillage. Soil acidity was significantly increased by no tillage. Conservation tillage systems promoted soil biological activity, doubling soil enzyme activity compared to conventional tillage. The mean Soil Quality Index (SQI) for reduced tillage represents a 25% improvement over the conventional system, achieving a “good” classification in soil quality index. Despite the positive effect of reduced tillage on soil quality, a 5–25% decrease in crop yields was observed. In conclusion, the results confirmed that long-term reduced tillage had a beneficial effect on the quality of clay-loamy soil.
Show all
Understanding the factors influencing soil quality is essential for implementing sustainable management practices that ensure long-term agricultural productivity and ecosystem resilience. The four-crop rotation was established in 2005 at the experimental station of the Agroecology Research Institute in Slovakia, where the effects of conventional (CT) and conservation (reduced tillage – RT, and no tillage—NT) systems on the quality (physical, chemical, biological parameters) of clay-loamy soil (Gleyic Fluvisols) were compared. During the 2023–2025 study period, the research focused on two crops within the rotation, namely maize and soya. In topsoil, accumulation of soil organic carbon and nutrients was observed in conservation tillage systems. Reduced tillage alleviated soil compaction compared to conventional and no tillage. Soil acidity was significantly increased by no tillage. Conservation tillage systems promoted soil biological activity, doubling soil enzyme activity compared to conventional tillage. The mean Soil Quality Index (SQI) for reduced tillage represents a 25% improvement over the conventional system, achieving a “good” classification in soil quality index. Despite the positive effect of reduced tillage on soil quality, a 5–25% decrease in crop yields was observed. In conclusion, the results confirmed that long-term reduced tillage had a beneficial effect on the quality of clay-loamy soil.
What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property. The largest groups are open; open the others as you need them.
bulk density (BD)
↑ 2↓ 46
↓decrease
RT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya2023/24/25; maize2025. Excludesmaize2023reversal andmaize2024shareda/ab.
Numbers
treatment 1.35 vs. control 1.42 g cm-3 (-4.93 %) · 2023 · soya;RT
treatment 1.31 vs. control 1.41 g cm-3 (-7.092 %) · 2024 · soya;RT
treatment 1.25 vs. control 1.41 g cm-3 (-11.35 %) · 2025 · soya;RT
treatment 1.28 vs. control 1.4 g cm-3 (-8.571 %) · 2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 14
“RT significantly reduced bulk density under soya (1.35 g cm⁻³) compared with CT (1.42 g cm⁻³)”
Source · p. 14
“In 2025, RT consistently reduced soil bulk density in both soil layers.”
↓decrease
RT vs. CTsignificant · 10–20 cm · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maizeonly;soyaallsharedletterswithCT.
Numbers
treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.6 g cm-3 (-6.25 %) · 2023 · maize;RT
treatment 1.58 vs. control 1.73 g cm-3 (-8.671 %) · 2024 · maize;RT
treatment 1.45 vs. control 1.57 g cm-3 (-7.643 %) · 2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 14
“Under maize, RT significantly reduced bulk density and increased total porosity compared with CT and NT.”
↑increase
RT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2023 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maize;explicitreversalofgeneralRTlowerBD;actualTukeyoverridesS1omnibusns.
Numbers
treatment 1.42 vs. control 1.34 g cm-3 (+5.97 %) · 2023 · maize;RT
Source · p. 14
“In maize, CT showed the lowest bulk density and highest total porosity, whereas NT and RT resulted similar values.”
↑increase
NT vs. CTsignificant · 10–20 cm · 2023 and2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya;2025sharedlettersnotincluded.
Numbers
treatment 1.59 vs. control 1.54 g cm-3 (+3.247 %) · 2023 · soya;NT
treatment 1.59 vs. control 1.54 g cm-3 (+3.247 %) · 2024 · soya;NT
Source · p. 14
“In the 10–20 cm layer, NT under soya showed significantly higher bulk density (1.59 g cm⁻³) and lower porosity than CT and RT.”
↓decrease
RT vs. NTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · RT versus NT: soya2024/25, maize2024/25. Soya2023 a/ab and maize2023 b/b excluded. Distinct reference named in abstract.
Numbers
treatment 1.31 vs. control 1.47 g cm-3 (-10.88 %) · 2024 · soya,RTvsNT
treatment 1.49 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-4.487 %) · 2024 · maize,RTvsNT
treatment 1.25 vs. control 1.5 g cm-3 (-16.67 %) · 2025 · soya,RTvsNT
treatment 1.28 vs. control 1.43 g cm-3 (-10.49 %) · 2025 · maize,RTvsNT
Source · p. 14
“In maize, CT and NT resulted in significantly higher bulk density values than RT.”
Source · p. 34
“Regarding RT, this practice generally resulted in lower bulk density values compared to both CT and NT.”
↓decrease
RT vs. NTsignificant · 10–20 cm · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · RT versus NT: soya2023/24 and maize2023/24/25; soya2025 a/a excluded. Distinct reference named in abstract.
Numbers
treatment 1.53 vs. control 1.59 g cm-3 (-3.774 %) · 2023 · soya,RTvsNT
treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.56 g cm-3 (-3.846 %) · 2023 · maize,RTvsNT
treatment 1.54 vs. control 1.59 g cm-3 (-3.145 %) · 2024 · soya,RTvsNT
treatment 1.58 vs. control 1.69 g cm-3 (-6.509 %) · 2024 · maize,RTvsNT
treatment 1.45 vs. control 1.54 g cm-3 (-5.844 %) · 2025 · maize,RTvsNT
Source · p. 14
“Under maize, RT significantly reduced bulk density and increased total porosity compared with CT and NT.”
Source · p. 34
“Regarding RT, this practice generally resulted in lower bulk density values compared to both CT and NT.”
total porosity (TP)
↑ 3↓ 25
↑increase
RT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2023 and2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya;2024b/bexcluded;maize2025b/abexcluded.
Numbers
treatment 46.88 vs. control 44.89 V/V% (+4.433 %) · 2023 · soya;RT
treatment 51.84 vs. control 48.44 V/V% (+7.019 %) · 2025 · soya;RT
Source · p. 14
“Under soya, RT significantly reduced bulk density to 1.25 g cm-³ and increased porosity to 51.84% compared to CT and NT.”
soil moisture content
↑ 2↓ 1= 14
↑increase
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2023 and 2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya:21 September 2023,19/26 September 2024. Maize:11/21/28 September and12 October 2023,26 September and1 October 2024. Other shared-letter pairs excluded; no uniform all-date claim.
Numbers
treatment 38.3 vs. control 34.5 % v/v (+11.01 %) · 21 September 2023 · soya,NT
treatment 43 vs. control 33.4 % v/v (+28.74 %) · 19 September 2024 · soya,NT
treatment 36.2 vs. control 31.1 % v/v (+16.4 %) · 26 September 2024 · soya,NT
treatment 30.9 vs. control 22.2 % v/v (+39.19 %)
pH (KCl)
↓ 2= 13
↓decrease
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–30 cm · 2023 and2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Bothcrops; excludes2024explicitabsence.
Numbers
treatment 5.58 vs. control 5.78 pH (-3.46 %) · 2023 · soya;NTvsCT
treatment 5.87 vs. control 6 pH (-2.167 %) · 2023 · maize;NTvsCT
treatment 5.91 vs. control 6.1 pH (-3.115 %) · 2025 · soya;NTvsCT
treatment 6 vs. control 6.11 pH (-1.8 %) · 2025 · maize;NTvsCT
Source · p. 12
“NT significantly reduced pH (KCl) compared with CT and RT for both crops, except in 2024.”
pH (H2O)
↓ 22
↓decrease
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–30 cm · Autumn2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya andmaize; significantNTvsCTall6crop-years;threeblocks,12within-treatmentchemicalsubsamples.
Numbers
treatment 6.5 vs. control 6.73 pH (-3.418 %) · 2023 · soya;NTvsCT
treatment 6.75 vs. control 6.93 pH (-2.597 %) · 2023 · maize;NTvsCT
treatment 6.93 vs. control 7.09 pH (-2.257 %) · 2024 · soya;NTvsCT
treatment 6.88 vs. control 7.05 pH (-2.411 %) · 2024 · maize;NTvsCT
treatment 6.72 vs. control 6.98 pH (-3.725 %) · 2025 · soya;NTvsCT
treatment 6.79 vs. control 7.1 pH (-4.366 %) · 2025 · maize;NTvsCT
soil temperature
↑ 1↓ 12
↑increase
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · September/October 2023 and 2025; October 2024 maize · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya NT/RT: 11 and 28 September 2023,22 October 2025. Maize NT/RT:21 and28 September,12 October 2023,1 October 2024,22 October 2025;NT also17 October 2024. Other pairs excluded. Dispersion in Table5 is not labelled SD or SE.
Numbers
treatment 20.5 vs. control 18.4 °C (+11.41 %) · 11 September 2023 · soya, NT
treatment 20.1 vs. control 18.4 °C (+9.239 %) · 11 September 2023 · soya, RT
treatment 14.4 vs. control 13.8 °C (+4.348 %) · 28 September 2023 · soya, NT
treatment 14.1 vs. control 13.8 °C (+2.174 %) · 28 September 2023 · soya, RT
soil respiration
↑ 1↓ 12
↓decrease
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 11/21/28September2023;12October2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maize:NTall4dates;RTallbut28Sept2023. Soya:RT11Sept2023only;NTab/CTbonfirstsoyadatenotsignificant,21SeptRTb/CTbnotdifferent,28Septalllettersa. Respirationonlyoneblock,pseudoreplicationlimitation;nosoya2024respirationfiguredespitetextANOVAclaim.
Source · p. 18
“The effect of tillage on soil respiration was more pronounced in maize, where CT generally showed the highest rate of soil respiration compared to NT and RT (except 28 September 2023).”
Source · p. 31
“In the case of soya, this statement is only true at the first measurement time.”
crop yield
↑ 1↓ 12
↓decrease
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Significantnegativepairs:NTsoyaall3years,NTmaize2023/25;RTsoya2024/25,RTmaize2025. RT2023bothcropsandmaize2024sharedletterswithCT,excludedfromsignificantdecrease;NTmaize2024+7%sharedb/abexcluded,notasignificantreversal.
Numbers
treatment 2.84 vs. control 3.84 t ha-1 (-26.04 %) · 2023 · soya;NT
treatment 4.46 vs. control 7.45 t ha-1 (-40.13 %) · 2023 · maize;NT
treatment 2.35 vs. control 4.39 t ha-1 (-46.47 %) · 2024 · soya;NT
treatment 3.44 vs. control 4.39 t ha-1 (-21.64 %) · 2024 · soya;RT
treatment 1.92 vs. control 3.63 t ha-1 (-47.11 %)
Soil Quality Index (SQI)
↑ 22
↑increase
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 2023–2024average · Experimental Station at Milhostov · BothconservationvariantsagainstCT;actualaverageandannualletters;SQIintegratesBD/BGA/SOCnotmodel-predictedfieldoutcome.
Numbers
treatment 0.56 vs. control 0.48 (+16.67 %) · 2023–2024mean · NTvsCT
treatment 0.6 vs. control 0.48 (+25 %) · 2023–2024mean · RTvsCT
Source · p. 32
“Although NT resulted in a better soil quality status than conventional tillage”
Source · p. 27
“The two-year average results (2023-2024) confirm that RT (0.60) significantly outperformed both NT (0.56) and CT (0.48)”
soil organic carbon (SOC)
↑ 11
↑increase
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–30 cm · Autumn2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · NTallcrop-years; RTall exceptmaize2023. IndividualvariantTukeypairs, notpooledcontrast.
Numbers
treatment 15.6 vs. control 14.1 g kg-1 (+10.64 %) · 2023 · soya;NT
treatment 15.2 vs. control 14.1 g kg-1 (+7.801 %) · 2023 · soya;RT
treatment 16.5 vs. control 15.9 g kg-1 (+3.774 %) · 2023 · maize;NT
treatment 18 vs. control 16 g kg-1 (+12.5 %) · 2024 · soya;NT
treatment 17.8 vs. control 16 g kg-1 (+11.25 %) · 2024 · soya;RT
treatment 17.1 vs. control 14.9 g kg-1 (+14.77 %) · 2024 · maize;NT
treatment 16.8 vs. control 14.9 g kg-1 (+12.75 %)
available phosphorus (P2O5)
↑ 11
↑increase
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–30 cm · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · NTbothcropsall3years; RTbothcrops2024/25only. RTsoya2023declineandRTmaize2023absenceexcludedfromincrease. P2O5reportedunits.
Numbers
treatment 57 vs. control 55.2 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+3.261 %) · 2023 · soya;NT
treatment 82 vs. control 78.5 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+4.459 %) · 2023 · maize;NT
treatment 76.5 vs. control 66.5 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+15.04 %) · 2024 · soya;NT
treatment 80.3 vs. control 66.5 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+20.75 %) · 2024 · soya;RT
treatment 77.2 vs. control 69 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+11.88 %) · 2024 · maize;NT
treatment 81.4 vs. control 69 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+17.97 %)
available potassium (K2O)
↑ 11
↑increase
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–30 cm · 2023–2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Bothcrops,NT/RT exceptRTmaize2023; individualTukeypairs;K2Oreportedunits.
Numbers
treatment 225.8 vs. control 215.7 mg K2O kg-1 (+4.682 %) · 2023 · soya;NT
treatment 238.6 vs. control 215.7 mg K2O kg-1 (+10.62 %) · 2023 · soya;RT
treatment 250.1 vs. control 237.5 mg K2O kg-1 (+5.305 %) · 2023 · maize;NT
treatment 224.7 vs. control 196.5 mg K2O kg-1 (+14.35 %) · 2024 · soya;NT
treatment 222.2 vs. control 196.5 mg K2O kg-1 (+13.08 %) · 2024 · soya;RT
treatment 206.8 vs. control 183.3 mg K2O kg-1 (+12.82 %) · 2024 · maize;NT
β-glucosidase activity (BGA)
↑ 11
↑increase
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTsignificant · 0–30 cm · 2023 and2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Bothcrops;NTandRTvariants;Fig3lettersbothhigherthanCT;no2025biologicaltests.
Source · p. 19
“Soil β-glucosidase activity responded strongly to tillage management, and it was significantly higher in conservation tillage (RT, NT) than in CT for both crops in 2023 and 2024 (Figure 3).”
RT vs. CTsignificant · 10–20 cm · 2023 and2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maize;2025b/abexcluded.
Numbers
treatment 44.07 vs. control 39.4 V/V% (+11.85 %) · 2023 · maize;RT
treatment 38.86 vs. control 35.94 V/V% (+8.125 %) · 2024 · maize;RT
Source · p. 14
“Under maize, RT significantly reduced bulk density and increased total porosity compared with CT and NT.”
↓decrease
RT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 2023 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maize;explicitreversal;TukeypairnotS1omnibus.
Numbers
treatment 45.82 vs. control 51.73 V/V% (-11.42 %) · 2023 · maize;RT
Source · p. 14
“In maize, CT showed the lowest bulk density and highest total porosity, whereas NT and RT resulted similar values.”
↓decrease
NT vs. CTsignificant · 10–20 cm · 2023 and2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya;2025a/abexcluded.
Numbers
treatment 42.99 vs. control 44.49 V/V% (-3.372 %) · 2023 · soya;NT
treatment 42.97 vs. control 44.3 V/V% (-3.002 %) · 2024 · soya;NT
Source · p. 14
“In the 10–20 cm layer, NT under soya showed significantly higher bulk density (1.59 g cm⁻³) and lower porosity than CT and RT.”
↑increase
RT vs. NTsignificant · 0–20 cm · 2023-2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · RT versus NT porosity increase; 0-10 cm both crops 2024/2025, 10-20 cm soya 2023/2025 and maize 2023-2025. Shared-letter surface pairs in 2023 and soya 10-20 cm 2024 excluded. Adjacent depths merged with same direction/significance; actual depth and crop-year per observation. Three blocks, four cores per plot per layer.
Numbers
treatment 46.12 vs. control 43.43 V/V% (+6.194 %) · 0–10 cm · 2024 · soya; RT versus NT
treatment 42.42 vs. control 40.06 V/V% (+5.891 %) · 0–10 cm · 2024 · maize; RT versus NT
treatment 51.84 vs. control 42.33 V/V% (+22.47 %) · 0–10 cm · 2025 · soya; RT versus NT
treatment 50.99 vs. control 47.9 V/V% (+6.451 %) · 0–10 cm · 2025 · maize; RT versus NT
treatment 44.09 vs. control 42.99 V/V% (+2.559 %) · 10–20 cm · 2023 · soya; RT versus NT
treatment 44.07 vs. control 40.41 V/V% (+9.057 %) · 10–20 cm · 2023 · maize; RT versus NT
treatment 38.86 vs. control 35.4 V/V% (+9.774 %) · 10–20 cm · 2024 · maize; RT versus NT
treatment 44.67 vs. control 40.42 V/V% (+10.51 %) · 10–20 cm · 2025 · soya; RT versus NT
treatment 44.67 vs. control 42.29 V/V% (+5.628 %) · 10–20 cm · 2025 · maize; RT versus NT
Source · p. 14
“Under maize, RT significantly reduced bulk density and increased total porosity compared with CT and NT.”
Source · p. 14
“Under soya, RT significantly reduced bulk density to 1.25 g cm-³ and increased porosity to 51.84% compared to CT and NT.”
Source · p. 14
“In the 10-20 cm layer, RT showed lower bulk density and higher porosity than CT and NT in both crops.”
· 11 September 2023 · maize,NT
treatment 39.7 vs. control 35.6 % v/v (+11.52 %) · 21 September 2023 · maize,NT
treatment 38.5 vs. control 34 % v/v (+13.24 %) · 28 September 2023 · maize,NT
treatment 38.6 vs. control 34.6 % v/v (+11.56 %) · 12 October 2023 · maize,NT
treatment 34.3 vs. control 27.2 % v/v (+26.1 %) · 26 September 2024 · maize,NT
treatment 34 vs. control 31.7 % v/v (+7.256 %) · 1 October 2024 · maize,NT
Source · p. 16
“In maize, NT consistently maintained higher moisture contents than CT and RT during most sampling dates.”
Source · p. 16
“In contrast, soil moisture in soya was significantly enhanced by NT than CT.”
↓decrease
RT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 19Septemberand1October2024maize;22October2025soya · Experimental Station at Milhostov · ExplicitlowestRTmoisture,onlyactualdistinctTukeypairsagainstCT.
Numbers
treatment 31.3 vs. control 39.4 % v/v (-20.56 %) · 19September2024 · maize;RT
treatment 28.5 vs. control 31.7 % v/v (-10.09 %) · 1October2024 · maize;RT
treatment 18.7 vs. control 24.4 % v/v (-23.36 %) · 22October2025 · soya;RT
Source · p. 16
“while RT generally showed the lowest values.”
Source · p. 18
“while RT showed the lowest moisture content.”
=no effect
conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) vs. CTnot significant · 0–10 cm · 22October2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maize;NTandRTbothsameTukeyletteraasCT;explicitall-treatmentabsence,notinferredfromomnibus.
Numbers
treatment 31.3 vs. control 29.1 % v/v (+7.56 %) · 22October2025 · maize;NT
treatment 29.4 vs. control 29.1 % v/v (+1.031 %) · 22October2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 18
“In maize, RT and NT showed significantly higher soil temperature compared to CT, while soil moisture did not differ significantly among treatments.”
↑increase
NT vs. RTsignificant · 0–10 cm · September 2023-October 2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Sensor at 10 cm. NT versus RT increase only for distinct Tukey pairs: soya 21 Sep 2023 and 19 Sep 2024; maize 21/28 Sep 2023 and 19/26 Sep, 1/17 Oct 2024. Other dates excluded, no uniform seasonal effect. Three blocks, four readings per plot. Table 5 does not identify dispersion as SD or SE.
Numbers
treatment 38.3 vs. control 34.1 % v/v (+12.32 %) · 0–10 cm · 21 September 2023 · soya; NT versus RT
treatment 43 vs. control 36 % v/v (+19.44 %) · 0–10 cm · 19 September 2024 · soya; NT versus RT
treatment 39.7 vs. control 37.7 % v/v (+5.305 %) · 0–10 cm · 21 September 2023 · maize; NT versus RT
treatment 38.5 vs. control 32.6 % v/v (+18.1 %) · 0–10 cm · 28 September 2023 · maize; NT versus RT
treatment 39.1 vs. control 31.3 % v/v (+24.92 %) · 0–10 cm · 19 September 2024 · maize; NT versus RT (NT versus CT not significant on this date)
treatment 34.3 vs. control 27.9 % v/v (+22.94 %) · 0–10 cm · 26 September 2024 · maize; NT versus RT
treatment 34 vs. control 28.5 % v/v (+19.3 %) · 0–10 cm · 1 October 2024 · maize; NT versus RT
treatment 34.9 vs. control 30 % v/v (+16.33 %) · 0–10 cm · 17 October 2024 · maize; NT versus RT
Source · p. 16
“In soya, the highest soil moisture was measured under NT on 21 September 2023 (38.3%), significantly higher than in CT and RT.”
Source · p. 16
“In maize, NT consistently maintained higher moisture contents than CT and RT during most sampling dates.”
Source · p. 30
“In most measurements time, NT showed significantly higher soil moisture than CT and RT, that was more pronounced in maize.”
=no effect
NT vs. CTnot significant · 0–30 cm · 2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Bothcrops; explicit2024exception, allpairlettersa.
Numbers
treatment 6.1 vs. control 6.13 pH (-0.4894 %) · 2024 · soya;NTvsCT
treatment 6.11 vs. control 6.14 pH (-0.4886 %) · 2024 · maize;NTvsCT
Source · p. 12
“NT significantly reduced pH (KCl) compared with CT and RT for both crops, except in 2024.”
↓decrease
NT vs. RTsignificant · 0–30 cm · 2023 and 2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · NT versus RT KCl pH decrease: soya 2023 and both crops 2025. Maize 2023 a/ab and both crops 2024 shared letters excluded. Three blocks, four chemical subsamples per plot.
Numbers
treatment 5.58 vs. control 5.79 pH (-3.627 %) · 0–30 cm · 2023 · soya; NT versus RT
treatment 5.91 vs. control 6.11 pH (-3.273 %) · 0–30 cm · 2025 · soya; NT versus RT
treatment 6 vs. control 6.11 pH (-1.8 %) · 0–30 cm · 2025 · maize; NT versus RT
Source · p. 12
“NT significantly reduced pH (KCl) compared with CT and RT for both crops, except in 2024.”
Source · p. 12
“No tillage consistently resulted in lower pH (H₂O) values than CT and RT in all three study years.”
↓decrease
NT vs. RTsignificant · 0–30 cm · Autumn 2023-2025 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · NT versus RT water pH decrease, both crops in 2023 and 2025; 2024 shared a/ab letters excluded from significant scope. Three blocks, four chemical subsamples per plot. Distinct RT reference explicitly named in Results.
Numbers
treatment 6.5 vs. control 6.7 pH (-2.985 %) · 0–30 cm · 2023 · soya; NT versus RT
treatment 6.75 vs. control 6.92 pH (-2.457 %) · 0–30 cm · 2023 · maize; NT versus RT
treatment 6.72 vs. control 7.02 pH (-4.274 %) · 0–30 cm · 2025 · soya; NT versus RT
treatment 6.79 vs. control 7.08 pH (-4.096 %) · 0–30 cm · 2025 · maize; NT versus RT
Source · p. 12
“No tillage consistently resulted in lower pH (H₂O) values than CT and RT in all three study years.”
treatment 9.9 vs. control 9.2 °C (+7.609 %) · 22 October 2025 · soya, NT
treatment 9.7 vs. control 9.2 °C (+5.435 %) · 22 October 2025 · soya, RT
treatment 17.1 vs. control 15.6 °C (+9.615 %) · 21 September 2023 · maize, NT
treatment 16.6 vs. control 15.6 °C (+6.41 %) · 21 September 2023 · maize, RT
treatment 14.4 vs. control 13.6 °C (+5.882 %) · 28 September 2023 · maize, NT
treatment 13.8 vs. control 13.6 °C (+1.471 %) · 28 September 2023 · maize, RT
treatment 10.2 vs. control 9.5 °C (+7.368 %) · 12 October 2023 · maize, NT
treatment 10.1 vs. control 9.5 °C (+6.316 %) · 12 October 2023 · maize, RT
treatment 11.8 vs. control 11 °C (+7.273 %) · 1 October 2024 · maize, NT
treatment 11.9 vs. control 11 °C (+8.182 %) · 1 October 2024 · maize, RT
treatment 9.9 vs. control 9.2 °C (+7.609 %) · 17 October 2024 · maize, NT
treatment 9.1 vs. control 8.8 °C (+3.409 %) · 22 October 2025 · maize, NT
treatment 9.3 vs. control 8.8 °C (+5.682 %) · 22 October 2025 · maize, RT
Source · p. 16
“In 2023, NT and RT generally showed significantly higher soil temperatures in soya than CT during measurements in September (except on 21 September 2023).”
Source · p. 18
“In 2025, NT and RT showed significantly higher temperatures in soya than CT”
Source · p. 30
“NT and RT generally showed significantly higher soil temperatures than CT, especially during late-season measurements”
↓decrease
NT vs. CTsignificant · 0–10 cm · 19 and26September2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Soya;oppositedirectiontomainwarmingeffect;actuala/bpairs.
Numbers
treatment 15.8 vs. control 16.2 °C (-2.469 %) · 19September2024 · soya;NT
treatment 16.7 vs. control 17.3 °C (-3.468 %) · 26September2024 · soya;NT
Source · p. 16
“In 2024, soil temperatures differed only slightly among treatments in soya, although CT frequently showed higher values than NT.”
↑increase
RT vs. CTsignificant · 28 September 2023 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · Maize only, explicit exception to generally higher CT respiration. Figure 2 RT c above CT b at Tukey p<0.05. Respiration measured as three readings per plot in one block, limiting independent replication; no chart-derived means. Respiration measurement depth not stated.
Source · p. 18
“The effect of tillage on soil respiration was more pronounced in maize, where CT generally showed the highest rate of soil respiration compared to NT and RT (except 28 September 2023).”
· 2025 · soya;NT
treatment 2.73 vs. control 3.63 t ha-1 (-24.79 %) · 2025 · soya;RT
treatment 5.93 vs. control 7.27 t ha-1 (-18.43 %) · 2025 · maize;NT
treatment 4.87 vs. control 7.27 t ha-1 (-33.01 %) · 2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 20
“In the case of soya and maize, the lowest yields were measured in NT, while significantly higher yields were observed under CT and RT.”
Source · p. 21
“In 2025, the decline in soya yield under NT reached 47% and 25% under RT compared to CT.”
↑increase
RT vs. NTsignificant · 2023-2024 · Experimental Station at Milhostov · RT versus NT yield advantage: both crops in 2023, soya in 2024. Soya 2025 a/a excluded; maize RT is lower in 2024/2025, so no all-year advantage claimed. Three blocks; Table 6 does not identify SD or SE.
Numbers
treatment 3.63 vs. control 2.84 t ha-1 (+27.82 %) · 2023 · soya; RT versus NT
treatment 6.83 vs. control 4.46 t ha-1 (+53.14 %) · 2023 · maize; RT versus NT
treatment 3.44 vs. control 2.35 t ha-1 (+46.38 %) · 2024 · soya; RT versus NT
Source · p. 20
“In the case of soya and maize, the lowest yields were measured in NT, while significantly higher yields were observed under CT and RT.”
↑increase
RT vs. NTsignificant · 2024and2023–2024average · Experimental Station at Milhostov · RTbetterthanNTin2024andtwo-yearmean;not2023b/b. RTalonegoodaverageclassification.
Numbers
treatment 0.6 vs. control 0.56 (+7.143 %) · 2023–2024mean
Source · p. 27
“The two-year average results (2023-2024) confirm that RT (0.60) significantly outperformed both NT (0.56) and CT (0.48)”
· 2024 · maize;RT
treatment 17.7 vs. control 15.9 g kg-1 (+11.32 %) · 2025 · soya;NT
treatment 17.8 vs. control 15.9 g kg-1 (+11.95 %) · 2025 · soya;RT
treatment 16.9 vs. control 15.5 g kg-1 (+9.032 %) · 2025 · maize;NT
treatment 16.6 vs. control 15.5 g kg-1 (+7.097 %) · 2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 12
“Conservation tillage systems (RT, NT) caused a significant increase in the organic carbon content of the 0-30 cm soil layer for both crops (except for maize in RT in 2023).”
· 2024 · maize;RT
treatment 75.2 vs. control 64.1 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+17.32 %) · 2025 · soya;NT
treatment 79.7 vs. control 64.1 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+24.34 %) · 2025 · soya;RT
treatment 76.4 vs. control 70.5 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+8.369 %) · 2025 · maize;NT
treatment 79.7 vs. control 70.5 mg P2O5 kg-1 (+13.05 %) · 2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 13
“In 2024, the phosphorus content of both crops was also significantly greater under NT and RT than under CT”
Source · p. 13
“In maize, the concentration of available phosphorus and potassium also showed significant increase in NT and RT compared to CT.”
treatment 210.2 vs. control 183.3 mg K2O kg-1 (+14.68 %) · 2024 · maize;RT
treatment 223.2 vs. control 193.8 mg K2O kg-1 (+15.17 %) · 2025 · soya;NT
treatment 230.8 vs. control 193.8 mg K2O kg-1 (+19.09 %) · 2025 · soya;RT
treatment 224.1 vs. control 220.4 mg K2O kg-1 (+1.679 %) · 2025 · maize;NT
treatment 221.3 vs. control 220.4 mg K2O kg-1 (+0.4083 %) · 2025 · maize;RT
Source · p. 13
“Potassium concentrations of maize plots were also significantly greater in conservation tillage treatments (NT, RT).”
Source · p. 13
“Potassium concentrations showed a similar result.”