What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property.
grain yield
↑ 5= 29
↑increase
subsoiling (ST) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 2005 and2015 endpoints; cumulative2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both wheat/maize and both straw strata; comparisons within straw stratum; cumulative yields are totals not annualmeans.
treatment 8 vs. control 7.1 Mg ha-1 (+12.68 %) · 2015 · wheat; removal
treatment 72.8 vs. control 68.5 Mg ha-1 (+6.277 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · wheat; removal
treatment 5.9 vs. control 5.5 Mg ha-1 (+7.273 %) · 2005 · wheat; return
treatment 8.4 vs. control 7.5 Mg ha-1 (+12 %) · 2015 · wheat; return
treatment 82.3 vs. control 74.2 Mg ha-1 (+10.92 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · wheat; return
treatment 7.8 vs. control 7 Mg ha-1 (+11.43 %) · 2005 · maize; removal
treatment 10.6 vs. control 8.9 Mg ha-1 (+19.1 %) · 2015 · maize; removal
treatment 102.6 vs. control 92.4 Mg ha-1 (+11.04 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · maize; removal
treatment 8.6 vs. control 7.5 Mg ha-1 (+14.67 %) · 2005 · maize; return
treatment 11.4 vs. control 9.3 Mg ha-1 (+22.58 %) · 2015 · maize; return
treatment 112.4 vs. control 99.2 Mg ha-1 (+13.31 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · maize; return
percent_change 6.2 · 2005-2015 average · wheat;ST0vsCT0
percent_change 11 · 2005-2015 average · maize;ST0vsCT0
Source · p. 3
“When straw was removed, wheat and maize yields were higher for ST than NT and CT in 2005 and 2015. Cumulative yields for 11 yr were also highest for ST.”
Source · p. 3
“When straw was returned, wheat and maize yields were higher for ST than NT and CT in 2005 but comparable for ST and NT in 2015. Cumulative yields for 11 yr were higher for ST than NT and CT.”
treatment 5.4 vs. control 5.1 Mg ha-1 (+5.882 %) · 2005 · wheat;removal
treatment 8 vs. control 7.5 Mg ha-1 (+6.667 %) · 2015 · wheat;removal
treatment 72.8 vs. control 65.4 Mg ha-1 (+11.31 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · wheat;removal
treatment 5.9 vs. control 5.6 Mg ha-1 (+5.357 %) · 2005 · wheat;return
treatment 82.3 vs. control 72.2 Mg ha-1 (+13.99 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · wheat;return
treatment 7.8 vs. control 7.1 Mg ha-1 (+9.859 %) · 2005 · maize;removal
treatment 10.6 vs. control 9.5 Mg ha-1 (+11.58 %) · 2015 · maize;removal
treatment 102.6 vs. control 89.8 Mg ha-1 (+14.25 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · maize;removal
treatment 8.6 vs. control 7.7 Mg ha-1 (+11.69 %) · 2005 · maize;return
treatment 112.4 vs. control 98.3 Mg ha-1 (+14.34 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · maize;return
Source · p. 3
“When straw was removed, wheat and maize yields were higher for ST than NT and CT in 2005 and 2015. Cumulative yields for 11 yr were also highest for ST.”
Source · p. 3
“When straw was returned, wheat and maize yields were higher for ST than NT and CT in 2005 but comparable for ST and NT in 2015.”
treatment 8.4 vs. control 8.2 Mg ha-1 (+2.439 %) · 2015 · wheat
treatment 11.4 vs. control 11.2 Mg ha-1 (+1.786 %) · 2015 · maize
Source · p. 3
“When straw was returned, wheat and maize yields were higher for ST than NT and CT in 2005 but comparable for ST and NT in 2015.”
↑increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 2015 · Tai'an · Both crops/both strawstrata at endofexperiment explicitly presented in discussion4.4; not claimed universal11yearmeanincrease.
Numbers
treatment 7.5 vs. control 7.1 Mg ha-1 (+5.634 %) · 2015 · wheat;removal
treatment 8.2 vs. control 7.5 Mg ha-1 (+9.333 %) · 2015 · wheat;return
treatment 9.5 vs. control 8.9 Mg ha-1 (+6.742 %) · 2015 · maize;removal
treatment 11.2 vs. control 9.3 Mg ha-1 (+20.43 %) · 2015 · maize;return
Source · p. 7
“higher SOC and yields with ST and NT than CT at the end of the experiment.”
=no effect
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)not significant · cumulative2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both crops.
Numbers
treatment 72.2 vs. control 74.2 Mg ha-1 (-2.695 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · wheat
treatment 98.3 vs. control 99.2 Mg ha-1 (-0.9073 %) · cumulative2005-2015 · maize
Source · p. 3
“Cumulative yields were comparable for CT and NT with straw return.”
↑increase
straw return vs. straw removalsignificant · 2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both crops; Table1two-level strawmain effect df1 averagedacross3 tillagemethods, p<.01eachyear. Not individual tillage-stratum pairtests.
Source · p. 5
“In this study, crop straw return increased the SOC storage and crop yield in both winter wheat and summer maize crops.”
Source · p. 3
“straw management (df = 1)”
↑increase
with soil organic carbon (SOC) storagesignificant · 0–20 cm · 2005-2015 · Tai'an · Pearson across treatment-year means;66points for eachcrop, not66fieldreplicates. Observationalassociation, notcausalSOCmanipulation.
Numbers
r = 0.836, n = 66 · 0–20 cm · 2005-2015 · winter wheat
r = 0.792, n = 66 · 0–20 cm · 2005-2015 · summer maize
Source · p. 4
“Both, winter wheat and summer maize yields increased with SOC storage.”
↑increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significance not stated · 2005-2008 · Tai'an · NT0 versus CT0; winter wheat and summer maize, early period of the explicitly reported temporal reversal. Figure 2 displays SE bars without pairwise tests; 2005 Table 3 means share b. No significant increase is claimed for each year.
Numbers
treatment 5.1 vs. control 5.1 Mg ha-1 (0 %) · 2005 · winter wheat; displayed means round to equality and share b
treatment 7.1 vs. control 7 Mg ha-1 (+1.429 %) · 2005 · summer maize; both means share b
Source · p. 3
“In the early stage (2005–2008) of conservation tillage, yield of both winter wheat and summer maize in NT0 was higher than in CT0 , but lower than in CT0 after 2009, except in 2015.”
Source · p. 4
“The 11 yr results revealed that NT increased crop yields over the 2005–2008 period, decreased in 2009–2014 and later increased in 2015.”
↓decrease
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significance not stated · 2009-2014 · Tai'an · NT0 versus CT0; winter wheat and summer maize. Explicitly reported reversal relative to 2005-2008 and 2015. Figure 2 has SE bars without pairwise significance; no chart means estimated.
Source · p. 3
“In the early stage (2005–2008) of conservation tillage, yield of both winter wheat and summer maize in NT0 was higher than in CT0 , but lower than in CT0 after 2009, except in 2015.”
Source · p. 4
“The 11 yr results revealed that NT increased crop yields over the 2005–2008 period, decreased in 2009–2014 and later increased in 2015.”
“Fig. 3. Yield variation (%) for winter wheat and summer maize of different treatments.”
↓decrease
subsoiling (ST) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · interannual2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both crops/bothstrawstrata; wheatST0cvsCT0a,STSevsCTSb; maizeST0cvsCT0a,STSdvsCTSb.
Source · p. 3
“The yield variation was consistently greatest for CT 0.”
Source · p. 7
“ST, combined with straw return, increased yield stability of both winter wheat and summer maize”
Source · p. 6
“Different letters on the bar indicate significant different at the 5% level.”
↓decrease
straw return vs. straw removalsignificant · interannual2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both cropsunderCTorST only: wheatCTSbvsCT0a,STSevsST0c; maizeCTSbvsCT0a,STSdvsST0c. NT reversal separately.
Source · p. 1
“NT, ST, and straw return increased crop yield stability, with STS being the most stable.”
Source · p. 7
“ST, combined with straw return, increased yield stability of both winter wheat and summer maize”
Source · p. 6
“Different letters on the bar indicate significant different at the 5% level.”
↑increase
straw return vs. straw removalsignificant · interannual2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both cropsunderNT: wheatNTScvsNT0d; maizeNTSavsNT0d. IncreasedCV meanslowerstability; actualFigure3lettersoverrideblanketabstract.
Source · p. 3
“CT0 \>CTS \>NTS = ST0 \>NT0 \>SST”
Source · p. 3
“CT0 =NTS\>CTS \>ST0 \>NT0 =STS .”
Source · p. 6
“Fig. 3. Yield variation (%) for winter wheat and summer maize of different treatments.”
↓decrease
subsoiling (ST) vs. no-tillage (NT)significant · interannual2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both cropswithstrawreturn: wheatSTSevsNTSc,maizeSTSdvsNTSa; lowerCV supportsheadlinehigheststability. Printed STSvariability11.3%wheat/8.8%maize, comparatornotprinted; nomeanscomputedfromchart.
Source · p. 7
“ST, combined with straw return, increased yield stability of both winter wheat and summer maize”
Source · p. 1
“Variability in STS was only 11.3% for winter wheat and 8.8% for summer maize.”
Source · p. 6
“Different letters on the bar indicate significant different at the 5% level.”
↑increase
subsoiling (ST) vs. no-tillage (NT)significant · interannual2005-2015 · Tai'an · Both cropswithoutstraw: ST0cvsNT0d inFig3; unlikeSTwithstraw, STalonehasgreatervariabilitythanNTalone.
Source · p. 3
“CT0 \>CTS \>NTS = ST0 \>NT0 \>SST”
Source · p. 3
“CT0 =NTS\>CTS \>ST0 \>NT0 =STS .”
Source · p. 6
“Different letters on the bar indicate significant different at the 5% level.”
soil organic carbon (SOC) storage
↑ 4= 15
↑increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Tai'an · Both straw strata, compared within each. Table2 final means, not 11-year averages.
Numbers
treatment 13 vs. control 10.6 g kg-1 (+22.64 %) · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Straw removal: NT0vsCT0
treatment 13.1 vs. control 11.3 g kg-1 (+15.93 %) · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Straw return: NTSvsCTS
Source · p. 3
“A similar trend was observed for NT S, suggesting that subsoiling and no-tillage can increase SOC storage.”
Source · p. 7
“The results shown that ST and NT could increase SOC storage.”
↑increase
subsoiling (ST) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Tai'an · Both straw strata, comparison within each; Table2 STS14.1 conflicts with Fig1 final point visually higher, no chart value substituted.
Numbers
treatment 11.9 vs. control 10.6 g kg-1 (+12.26 %) · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Straw removal
treatment 14.1 vs. control 11.3 g kg-1 (+24.78 %) · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Straw return
Source · p. 3
“the average SOC storage in ST0 and STS was higher than in CT0 and CTS , respectively in the long-term.”
↑increase
straw return vs. straw removalsignificant · 0–20 cm · 2007-2015 · Tai'an · Two-level straw main effect averaged across tillage; Table1 df1 p<.01 in2007-15, ns2005/06. Not an individual tillage-stratum pairtest; no printed marginalmeans.
Source · p. 3
“SOC storage in treatments with straw return was higher than those where straw was removed after crop cycle completion.”
Source · p. 3
“straw management (df = 1)”
=no effect
subsoiling (ST) vs. no-tillage (NT)not significant · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Tai'an
Numbers
treatment 14.1 vs. control 13.1 g kg-1 (+7.634 %) · 0–20 cm · 2015
Source · p. 1
“Subsoiling with straw return (STs) did not result in higher SOC than NTs after 11 yr”
Source · p. 4
“NT S 7.5b 13.1a 5.7** ST S 8.4a 14.1a 5.7***”
↑increase
no-tillage (NT) vs. subsoiling (ST)significant · 0–20 cm · 2015 · Tai'an
Numbers
treatment 13 vs. control 11.9 g kg-1 (+9.244 %) · 0–20 cm · 2015
Source · p. 7
“The highest SOC with straw removal in 2015 was with NT0 (Table 2)”
