HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Owens, L. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Owens, L. B. Agricola Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Owens, L. B. Related Collections Tillage Residue management Other Grain Crops

Production Papers

Changes in Long-Term No-Till Corn Growth and Yield under Different Rates of Stover Mulch

^a Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, FAES/OARDC, School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State Univ., 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1085
^b Environmental Sci. Div., Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN 37831
^c USDA-ARS, North Appalachian Experimental Watersheds, P.O. Box 488, Coshocton, OH 43812

^* Corresponding author (blanco.16{at}osu.edu)

Received for publication January 4, 2006.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Removal of corn (Zea mays L.) stover for biofuel production may affect crop yields by altering soil properties. A partial stover removal may be feasible, but information on appropriate rates of removal is unavailable. We assessed the short-term impacts of stover management on long-term no-till (NT) continuous corn grown on a Rayne silt loam (fine loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Hapludults) at Coshocton, Hoytville clay loam (fine, illitic, mesic Mollic Epiaqualfs) at Hoytville, and Celina silt loam (fine, mixed, active, mesic Aquic Hapludalfs) at South Charleston in Ohio, and predicted corn yield from soil properties using principal component analysis (PCA). The study was conducted in 2005 on the ongoing experiments started in May 2004 under 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200)% of stover corresponding to 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha^–1 of stover, respectively. Stover removal promoted early emergence and rapid seedling growth (P < 0.01). Early-emerging plants grew taller than late-emerging plants up to about 50 d, and then the heights reversed at Coshocton and were comparable at other two sites. Stover management affected corn yield only at the Coshocton site where average grain and stover yields in the T200, T100, T75, and T50 (10.8 and 10.3 Mg ha^–1) were higher than those in the T0 and T25 treatments (8.5 and 6.5 Mg ha^–1) (P < 0.01), showing that stover removal at rates as low as 50% (2.5 Mg ha^–1) decreased crop yields. Soil properties explained 71% of the variability in grain yield and 33% of the variability in stover yield for the Coshocton site. Seventeen months after the start of the experiment, effects of stover management on corn yield and soil properties were site-specific.

Abbreviations: CI, cone index • MWD, mean weight diameter of aggregates • NT, no-till • PCs, principal components • PCA, principal component analysis • SHEAR, shear strength • SWRC, soil water retention characteristics • SOC, soil organic carbon • TS, tensile strength

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
BIOFUEL production from renewable energy sources is among the potential strategies to reduce the use of nonrenewable fuel sources and net CO₂ emissions (Lal, 2005; Pacala and Socolow, 2004). Corn stover is an attractive biofuel feedstock source because of its abundance and high lignocellulosic contents (Johnson et al., 2004; Sedlak and Ho, 2004). Producing biofuel from corn stover can be a beneficial alternative to fossil fuels. Also, stover marketing for biofuel production could provide additional economic benefits to farmers. However, stover removal effects on subsequent crop production and soil productivity are not well documented. Because stover left on the soil surface impacts soil water and temperature regimes, radiation balance, nutrient cycling, and soil structural attributes essential to plant growth, excessive stover removal may reduce crop yields (Wilhelm et al., 2004).

In some ecosystems, a partial removal of stover for energy production may be a viable option. The unresolved question is, however, how much corn stover can be removed for ethanol production without negatively affecting crop production and soil productivity? While some estimates of stover removal for biofuel production based on the requirements to reduce soil erosion in the U.S. Corn Belt region are available (Larson et al., 1978; Nelson, 2002; Kim and Dale, 2004), data on the threshold levels of stover removal needed to sustain crop production have not been well documented. Local and regional guidelines are needed for recommendation on the maximum permissible rates of stover removal based on data from well-designed experiments. A balance between stover removal for biofuel production and stover retention for soil and water conservation in relation to crop productivity needs to be established for site-specific conditions.

While the importance of crop residue mulch for soil and water conservation is widely recognized, the data on the effects of residue removal or addition on corn yield can be variable. In some soils, high stover retention in NT soils can negatively affect corn growth and yield. On Rozetta (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludalfs) and Palsgrove (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludalfs) silt loams in southwestern Wisconsin, corn yield decreased when stover cover was doubled (Swan et al., 1994). On a Marshall silty clay loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludolls) in Iowa, corn yield decreased during the last 4 yr of a 13-yr continuous corn system with the addition of 2, 4, 8, and 16 Mg ha^–1 of stover mulch (Morachan et al., 1972). The lower corn yields, in some soils, may be due to slow soil warming during germination, low pH, nutrient immobilization, and high incidence of weeds and pests under high rates of stover mulch (Mann et al., 2002). Conversely, on a Crete-Butler silty clay loam (fine, smectitic, mesic Pachic Argiustolls) (<2% slope) in Nebraska, complete removal of stover from the soil surface of a 4-yr NT system reduced the corn grain and biomass yields by about 23% (Wilhelm et al., 1986; Power et al., 1998). On a Waukegan silt loam (fine-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludolls) in Minnesota, stover removal reduced corn yield by 1 Mg ha^–1 during 3 of a 12-yr NT continuous corn system (Linden et al., 2000). On a Raub silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Aquic Argiudolls) in Indiana, differences in corn yield under 6-yr NT continuous corn with stover returned, removed, and doubled were not, however, significant (Barber, 1979). Previous studies show that corn yield can increase, remain unaffected or decrease with increase in stover removal and underscore the need for clarification of stover removal impacts on corn yield. These data suggest that stover removal impacts on corn production depend on site-specific characteristics such as soil, topography, duration of stover management history, tillage, and climate. Thus, threshold levels for stover removal as biofuel must also be site-specific.

Changes in soil water content, temperature, and strength as a result of stover removal can alter soil conditions and impact corn emergence and growth (Sharratt, 2002). In fact, changes in near-surface soil physical properties by stover removal can be significant even within 1 yr following removal (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2006). Dabney et al. (2004) asserted that benefits of long-term NT management may be lost by removing crop residue. The hypothesis is that rapid changes in soil properties due to stover removal may also induce changes in corn growth and yield within a short period after stover removal even from a long-term NT system. Corn emergence can be particularly sensitive to changes in soil water and temperature regimes (Ford and Hicks, 1992). Uneven seed emergence and plant height can affect corn yield (Nafziger et al., 1991). Liu et al. (2004) reported that a delayed corn emergence due to slow soil warming in spring in mulched soils reduced grain yields by 35 to 50% compared with unmulched soils. In some mulched soils, the negative effects of delayed emergence on growth may be offset by improved nutrient and water supply and reduced soil crusting, but these counteracting processes across a range of soils need to be quantified. Literature is replete with studies on the combined effects of tillage, cropping systems, and residue management on crop yields (Lal et al., 2000; Pikul et al., 2001). Independent effects of a systematic removal of stover on corn grain and stover yields under long-term NT systems for the Corn Belt region have not, however, been studied extensively. Thus, research data are needed to determine threshold levels of stover removal. Understanding of the short-term impacts of stover removal on corn production is important to developing stover management strategies to meet energy and crop production needs.

Crop production depends largely on the complex interactions among dynamic and static soil properties. The PCA, a multivariate statistical approach, is a potential tool to identify the most sensitive soil attributes influencing crop yields (Jiang and Thelen, 2004). Studies assessing stover management-induced changes in soil properties in relation to corn grain and stover production using PCA are limited. Statistical tools such as PCA can also predict changes in yield based on critical soil properties. Hence, the objectives of this study were to: (i) quantify the impacts of stover removal and addition on corn growth and grain and stover yields across three principal soils in Ohio under NT continuous corn management, (ii) establish interrelationships between corn growth parameters and soil water and temperature regimes as affected by stover management, and (iii) identify critical near-surface soil properties affecting corn yield using PCA.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Site and Treatment Descriptions
The study was conducted on the ongoing long-term NT continuous corn experiments at three sites in Ohio. The project was initiated in 2004 to characterize the ramifications of corn stover removal on soil physical quality, hydrological and thermal properties, grain and stover yields, and soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration under NT continuous corn systems. The three experimental sites are: (i) North Appalachian Experimental Watersheds near Coshocton, (ii) Western Agricultural Experiment Station near South Charleston, and (iii) Northwestern Agricultural Experiment Station (NWAES) near Hoytville of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC). Soils among the three sites exhibit contrasting differences in texture, slope, and geology. Details of soil and management characteristics for the three sites are shown in Table 1.

Measurement of Agronomic Characteristics
Seedling emergence, plant height, chlorophyll content, and corn grain and stover yields were determined in all treatments and sites during the 2005 growing season. Measurements of corn agronomic characteristics were done on the center two 3-m rows of each plot. Days to emergence after planting were monitored to determine possible emergence delays due to the level of stover retention. Plant height was determined by measuring the distance from soil surface to growing tip of corn every week from emergence to silking (Ritchie and Hanway, 1982). Leaf chlorophyll content was measured by a Minolta SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter (Spectrum Technol., East-Plainfield, IL) to estimate differences in leaf N concentration among treatments given that N is a main element in chlorophyll molecules. The SPAD readings were obtained from the uppermost fully developed leaves without lesions for 30 plants per treatment at 50 d after emergence. At physiological maturity, corn ears and stover from the center two rows were hand harvested and weighed in October 2005 to quantify grain and stover yields. Upon air-drying, corn ears were shelled, and kernels and cobs weighed separately. Subsamples of stover, kernel, and cob were weighed and then oven-dried at 65°C for 72 h to determine water content. Grain and biomass yields are reported at water content of 155 g kg^–1.

Measurement of Soil Properties
To explain any possible differences in corn yield among stover removal treatments, a number of dynamic soil properties were evaluated from emergence (May) to silking (July) stage during 2005. Soil temperature was monitored every other day from emergence up to 8 d following emergence and then once weekly thereafter. Dual thermocouple thermometer probes (Cole-Parmer Instruments, Co., Vernon Hills, IL; McInnes, 2002), inserted at the 5- and 10-cm soil depths, were used to record temperature at 1400 h. Volumetric soil water content (_v) based on the gravimetric water content (Topp and Ferré, 2002) and bulk density (_b) determined by the core method (Grossman and Reinsch, 2002) were measured weekly on intact small 5.4- by 6-cm soil cores, extracted from 0- to 6-cm depth. Soil strength parameters such as cone index (CI) and shear strength (SHEAR) were measured monthly for the 0- to 5-cm depth. A static hand cone penetrometer (Eijkelkamp, Giesbeek, the Netherlands) was used to measure soil penetration resistance (Lowery and Morrison, 2002), and a CL-612 shear vane tester (ELE International, Lake Bluff, IL; Serota and Jangle, 1972) was used to measure the SHEAR. In July 2005, 5.4- by 6-cm intact soil cores and bulk samples were collected from each plot for all sites to determine saturated hydraulic conductivity (K_sat) by the constant head method (Reynolds et al., 2002), soil water retention characteristics (SWRC) at –10kPa by the tension table and –30kPa by pressure plate extraction (Dane and Hopmans, 2002), air permeability (k_a) by the steady-state method (Ball and Schjønning, 2002), water-stable aggregates (WSA) by the wet-sieving procedure to compute mean weight diameter (MWD) (Nimmo and Perkins, 2002), tensile strength (TS) of 6- to 8-mm aggregates by the crushing method (Dexter and Watts, 2001), and total SOC concentration by the dry combustion method (900°C) using a CN analyzer (Vario Max, Elementar Americas, Hanau, Germany) (Nelson and Sommers, 1996).

Statistics
The two-factor ANOVA model was used to test whether: (i) treatment x block interaction was significant and (ii) stover management affected corn emergence, plant height, corn yield, and soil properties by site. The PCA was used to compute soil variance and to determine the most yield-influencing soil properties. Principal components with eigenvalues >1 were retained (Kaiser criterion) and then subjected to varimax rotation to identify potential determinants of crop yield using the FACTOR procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, 2005). The PCA loadings based on rotated scores, communality estimates, and scoring coefficients were used as a criteria to determine the influence of a given soil property on yield variability. Scoring coefficients of the PCs were used as independent variables to develop equations to predict grain and stover yields using stepwise multiple regression analyses. All statistical analyses were done using SAS.

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Corn Emergence and Plant Height
The two-factor ANOVA showed that the treatment x block interaction was not significant for any of the parameters measured at any of the three sites. Time to corn emergence was significantly affected by the removal and addition of stover 1 yr after experiment initiation (P < 0.05). Across all sites, the systematic removal of stover promoted early emergence, whereas doubling the amount of stover delayed emergence. Days to emergence after planting for each treatment and site were: 8 in T0 and T25, 9 in T50, 10 in T75, 11 in T100, and 13 in T200 plots at Coshocton; 9 in T0, T25, and T50, 11 in T75, 12 in T100, and 16 in T200 plots at Hoytville; 8 in T0 and T25, 9 in T50, 10 in T75, 11 in T100, and 13 in T200 plots at Charleston. Compared with the complete stover removal treatment (T0), the normal stover treatment (T100) delayed emergence by 3 d, while the T75 treatment delayed emergence by 2 d at Coshocton and Charleston and by 3 d at Hoytville. Doubling the quantity of stover from 100 (T100) to 200% (T200) delayed emergence by 2 d at Coshocton and Charleston and by 4 d at Hoytville compared with the T100 treatment. Thus, if 100% of stover was removed or added, corn emergence increased or decreased accordingly by about 3 d. Similar studies in temperate climates have also reported that increased stover cover hinders corn emergence (Mehdi et al., 1999).

Mean corn height as a function of stover management from emergence to silking is shown in Fig. 1 . The significant differences in days to emergence, discussed earlier, had a direct effect on corn height. Early emerging plants grew consistently taller than the late emerging plants up to about 50 d following emergence. Early in the growing season, corn height decreased with increase in stover retention (Fig. 2 ). For example, 1 wk after emergence, variations in stover quantities explained >90% of the variability in plant height at the three sites (P < 0.01). However, the magnitude of differences in height diminished rapidly with time. In fact, at about 50 d following emergence, corn height evened out at all sites, and thereafter the impact of residue on corn height was gradually reversed particularly at Coshocton. Contrary to early stages, corn under the T75 and the T100 treatments grew consistently taller than that under T0 and T25 at Coshocton and slightly at Hoytville. At silking, corn height increased in direct proportion to stover retention at all but the Charleston site where differences in height among treatments were unaffected (P > 0.10). These results indicate that stover retention can diminish corn emergence and plant height, but the early effects on height can be reversed depending on soil type.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Corn height as a function of days after emergence under six stover treatments for three no-till sites in Ohio including Coshocton, Hoytille, and South Charleston. The six treatments including 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200)% of corn stover correspond to 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1 of stover, respectively. The error bars represent the LSD(0.05) for treatment comparisons.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Relationship between corn height and six stover rates (0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1) at 8 d after emergence and silking stage under three no-till sites in Ohio.

Corn Growth vs. Soil Water Content and Temperature Relationships
The uneven emergence and seedling height among treatments were directly attributed to stover cover effects on soil _v (Fig. 3 ) and temperature (Fig. 4 ). At all sites, soil _v decreased and temperature increased with increase in stover removal (P < 0.01). Soils under the T200, T100, and T75 treatments were wetter and colder than those under the T50, T25, and T0 treatments, which most likely delayed emergence. On the average, _v for the T100 and T75 treatments was higher than that for the T0, and T25, and T50 treatments by 40% at Coshocton, 60% at Hoytville, and 70% at Charleston for the dates measured between emergence and silking (Fig. 3). Differences in soil _v and temperature between the double stover treatment (T200) and normal stover treatment (T100) were generally not significant except during the first 10 d following emergence in which _v for T200 was higher by 34% at Coshocton, 60% at Hoytville, and 27% at Charleston. Stover removal of >25% (1.25 Mg ha^–1) increased soil temperature by 3 to 7°C from emergence to silking (Fig. 4).

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Variations in soil water content from corn emergence to silking stage for three no-till sites in Ohio. The six treatments including 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200)% of corn stover correspond to 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1 of stover, respectively. The error bars represent the LSD(0.05) for treatment comparisons.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Variations in soil temperature from corn emergence to silking stage for three no-till sites in Ohio. The six treatments including 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200)% of corn stover correspond to 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1 of stover, respectively. The error bars represent the LSD(0.05) for treatment comparisons.

View larger version (29K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Corn height as a function of changes in soil temperature for three no-till sites in Ohio. The six treatments including 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200)% of corn stover correspond to 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1 of stover, respectively.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Corn height as a function of changes in soil water content for three no-till sites in Ohio. The six treatments including 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200)% of corn stover correspond to 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1 of stover, respectively.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Corn (A) grain and (B) stover yield under six stover treatments for three no-till sites in Ohio. The error bars represent the LSD0.05 for treatment comparisons. The six rates of stover retention of 0, 1.25, 2.50, 3.75, 5.00, and 10.00 Mg ha–1 correspond to 0 (T0), 25 (T25), 50 (T50), 75 (T75), 100 (T100), and 200 (T200) % of corn stover, respectively.

Influence of Soil Properties on Corn Yield using Principal Component Analysis
The significant impacts of stover management on corn yield at Coshocton may be explained by the surprisingly rapid changes in soil physical properties within the 0- to 10-cm depth in addition to soil water and temperature regimes shortly after the stover removal (Table 2). The _b, CI, SHEAR, and TS increased, whereas K_sat, k_a, soil water retention capacity at –10 and –30 kPa, MWD, and SOC concentration decreased significantly with increase in stover removal. The stover management effects on soil properties are in accord with the results reported by Blanco-Canqui et al. (2006) for the same study sites. The magnitude of changes in soil properties as a result of stover removal at Coshocton was higher than at the other two sites, indicating that sloping soils may be more susceptible to rapid soil deterioration if stover is removed. These rapid changes in near-surface soil structural properties among treatments most likely altered water, air, and nutrient fluxes, and could explain differences in corn yield.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Selected soil properties including bulk density (b), cone index (CI), shear strength (SHEAR), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), air permeability (ka), volumetric water content (v), mean weight diameter of aggregates (MWD), soil organic carbon (SOC) concentration, and tensile strength of aggregates (TS) under the six stover treatments for the for the 0- to 10-cm soil depth at Coshocton. The b, CI, and SHEAR are means averaged across the 3 mo (May, June, and July).

[1]

[2]

The Eq. [1] shows that PC2 was a sensitive predictor of grain yield, explaining about 71% of the variability. These results show that soil temperature, water holding capacity and stability of aggregates were the dominant factors controlling grain yield. In contrast, PC1 was an important predictor of stover production and explained about 33% of the variability in stover yield (Eq. [2]). Field _v, CI, and TS were among the most sensitive stover yield-influencing variables in PC1. Stover removal reduced _v and increased the soil's susceptibility to surface crusting, sealing, and reconsolidation by raindrop impacts, affecting even the micro-scale structural properties of aggregates such as TS. Response of corn yield to changes in soil properties is often variable and site-specific. Studies have shown that soil properties explain about 30% (Kravchenko and Bullock, 2000), 28 to 85% (Jiang and Thelen, 2004), and 24% (Shukla et al., 2004) of the variability in grain yield. This study suggests that rapid changes in near-surface soil structural properties in addition to abrupt changes in soil _v and temperature can be critical factors affecting grain and stover production.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
This study shows that stover removal can negatively impact corn production and soil properties within a short time after removal, depending on the soil. Stover removal improves corn emergence and promotes early growth in the first 2 mo following germination. Corn heights among stover removal treatments may, however, catch up to or exceed the control later in the season because of favorable soil water and temperature conditions in mulched plots. The uneven emergence and height of corn are strongly correlated with the stover management-induced changes in soil water content and soil temperature. Results show that stover removal decreases grain and stover yields in sloping, erosion-prone, and unglaciated soils in contrast with glaciated soils on gentle slopes. In sloping soils, stover removal rate >50% (2.5 Mg ha^–1) can strongly decrease the grain and stover yields even shortly (17 mo) after stover removal. Changes in soil water content, soil temperature, and near-surface soil structural properties as a result of stover removal explain differences in corn yield using principal component analysis. This study furthers the understanding of short-term stover management impacts on corn production and soil attributes. Additional studies are, however, needed to develop proper stover management strategies and to establish threshold levels of stover removal across these and similar soils.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors thank Clarence Renk, Farm Manager at the Western Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Charleston, and Matthew H. Davis, Farm Manager at the Northwestern Agricultural Experiment Station, Hoytville for their help with the management of the experimental plots. Research conducted within the CSiTE (Consortium for Research on Enhanced Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems) program. CSiTE is supported by the U.S. Dep. of Energy, Office of Science as part of the Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration program in the Office of Biological & Environmental Research.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 

• Ball, B.C., and P. Schjønning. 2002. Air permeability. p. 1141–1182. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Barber, S.A. 1979. Corn residue management and soil organic matter. Agron. J. 71:625–627.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Blanco-Canqui, H., R. Lal, W.M. Post, R.C. Izaurralde, and L.B. Owens. 2006. Corn stover impacts on near-surface soil properties of no-till corn in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:266–278.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Dabney, S.M., G.V. Wilson, K.C. McGregor, and G.R. Foster. 2004. History, residue, and tillage effects on erosion of loessial soil. Trans. ASAE 47:767–775.
• Dam, R.F., B.B. Mehdi, M.S.E. Burgess, C.A. Madramootoo, G.R. Mehuys, and I.R. Callum. 2005. Soil bulk density and crop yield under eleven consecutive years of corn with different tillage and residue practices in a sandy loam soil in central Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 84:41–53.
• Dane, J.H., and J.H. Hopmans. 2002. Water retention and storage. p. 671–717. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Dexter, A.R., and C.W. Watts. 2001. Tensile strength and friability. p. 405–433. In K.A. Smith and C.E. Mullins (ed.) Soil and environmental analysis: Physical methods. Marcel Dekker, New York.
• Ford, J.H., and D.R. Hicks. 1992. Corn growth and yield in uneven emerging stands. J. Prod. Agric. 5:185–188.
• Grossman, R.B., and T.G. Reinsch. 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility. p. 201–225. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Jiang, P., and K.D. Thelen. 2004. Effect of soil and topographic properties on crop yield in a north-central corn–soybean cropping system. Agron. J. 96:252–258.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Johnson, J.M.F., D. Reicosky, B. Sharratt, M. Lindstrom, W. Voorhees, and L. Carpenter-Boggs. 2004. Characterization of soil amended with the by-product of corn stover fermentation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:139–147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Kim, S., and B.E. Dale. 2004. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy 26:361–375.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Kravchenko, A.N., and D.G. Bullock. 2000. Correlation of corn and soybean grain yield with topography and soil properties. Agron. J. 92:75–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Lal, R. 2005. World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environ. Int. 31:575–584.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
• Lal, R., M. Ahmadi, and R.M. Bajracharya. 2000. Erosional impacts on soil properties and corn yield on alfisols in central Ohio. Land Degrad. Dev. 11:575–585.
• Larson, W.E., R.F. Holt, and C.W. Carlson. 1978. Residues for soil conservation. In W.R. Oschwald (ed.) Crop residue management systems. ASA Spec. Publ. 31. ASA, Madison, WI.
• Linden, D.R., C.E. Clapp, and R.H. Dowdy. 2000. Long-term corn grain and stover yields as a function of tillage and residue removal in east central Minnesota. Soil Tillage Res. 56:167–174.[CrossRef]
• Liu, W.D., M. Tollenaar, G. Stewart, and W. Deen. 2004. Response of corn grain yield to spatial and temporal variability in emergence. Crop Sci. 44:847–854.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Lowery, B., and J.E. Morrison. 2002. Soil penetrometers and penetrability. p. 363–385. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Mann, L., V. Tolbert, and J. Cushman. 2002. Potential environmental effects of corn (Zea mays L.) stover removal with emphasis on soil organic matter and erosion. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:149–166.[CrossRef]
• McInnes, K.J. 2002. Temperature. p. 1183–1199. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Mehdi, B.B., C.A. Madramootoo, and G.R. Mehuysa. 1999. Yield and nitrogen content of corn under different tillage practices. Agron. J. 91:631–636.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Morachan, Y.B., W.C. Moldenhauer, and W.E. Larson. 1972. Effects of increasing amounts of organic residues on continuous corn: I. Yields and soil physical properties. Agron. J. 64:199–203.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Nafziger, E.D., P.R. Carter, and E.E. Graham. 1991. Response of corn to uneven emergence. Crop Sci. 31:811–815.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommers. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter: Laboratory methods. p. 961–1010. In D.L. Sparks et al. (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 3. SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI.
• Nelson, R.G. 2002. Resource assessment and removal analysis for corn stover and wheat straw in the Eastern and Midwestern United States: Rainfall and wind-induced soil erosion methodology. Biomass Bioenergy 22:349–363.[CrossRef]
• Nimmo, J.R., and K.S. Perkins. 2002. Aggregate stability and size distribution. p. 317–327. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Pacala, S., and R. Socolow. 2004. Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science (Washington, DC) 305:968–972.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Pikul, J.L., L. Carpenter-Boggs, M. Vigil, T.E. Schumacher, M.J. Lindstrom, and W.E. Riedell. 2001. Crop yield and soil condition under ridge and chisel-plow tillage in the northern Corn Belt, USA. Soil Tillage Res. 60:21–33.[CrossRef]
• Power, J.F., P.T. Koerner, J.W. Doran, and W.W. Wilhelm. 1998. Residual effects of crop residues on grain production and selected soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:1393–1397.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Reynolds, W.D., D.E. Elrick, and E.G. Youngs. 2002. Field methods (vadose and saturated zone techniques). p. 817–877. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Ritchie, S.W., and J.J. Hanway. 1982. How a corn plant develops. Spec. Rep. 48. Iowa Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames.
• SAS Institute. 2005. Online doc. 9.1.3. Available at http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp (verified 26 Apr. 2006). SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
• Sedlak, M., and N.W.Y. Ho. 2004. Production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass hydrolysates using genetically engineered Saccharomyces yeast capable of cofermenting glucose and xylose. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 113–116:403–416.
• Serota, S., and A. Jangle. 1972. A direct-reading pocket shear vane. Trans. ASAE. Civ. Eng. 42:73–74.
• Sharratt, B.S. 2002. Corn stubble height and residue placement in the northern US Corn Belt: I. Soil physical environment during winter. Soil Tillage Res. 64:243–252.[CrossRef]
• Shukla, M.K., R. Lal, and M. Ebinger. 2004. Principal component analysis for predicting corn biomass and grain yields. Soil Sci. 169:215–224.
• Sloneker, L.L., and W.C. Moldenhauer. 1977. Measuring the amounts of crop residue remaining after tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32:231–236.
• Swan, J.B., R.L. Higgs, T.B. Bailey, N.C. Wollenhaupt, W.H. Paulson, and A.E. Peterson. 1994. Surface residue and in-row treatment effects on long-term no-tillage continuous corn. Agron. J. 86:711–718.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Topp, G.C., and P.A. Ferré. 2002. Water content. p. 417–422. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Agron. Monogr. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Wilhelm, W.W., J.M.F. Johnson, J.L. Hatfield, W.B. Voorhees, and D.R. Linden. 2004. Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: A literature review. Agron. J. 96:1–17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Wilhelm, W.W., J.W. Doran, and J.F. Power. 1986. Corn and soybean yield response to crop residue management under no-tillage production systems. Agron. J. 78:184–189.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Blanco-Canqui and R. Lal Impacts of Long-Term Wheat Straw Management on Soil Hydraulic Properties under No-Tillage Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., June 8, 2007; 71(4): 1166 - 1173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Owens, L. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Owens, L. B. Agricola Articles by Blanco-Canqui, H. Articles by Owens, L. B. Related Collections Tillage Residue management Other Grain Crops