Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
19
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
19 results for “no-till”
Figure 7 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 7. Annual, perennial, dicot, and monocot weed biomass in each weed management treatment pooled across fields. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using separate Fisher's LSD tests (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 6 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 6. Diversity indices of weed communities for all treatments. Weed by species biomass was pooled across fields.Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using separate Fisher's LSD tests (P> 0.05).Error bars are standard errors and treatments are abbreviated:NC,nontreated control; SR,seeding rate; IM, interrow mower;WZ,Weed Zapper™.
Figure 5 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 5. Weed biomass in each weed management treatment pooled across all site-years.Biomass was sampled in mid-August after all management tactics had been applied. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 4 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 4. Soybean density in August after all weed management treatments were applied. Data were pooled across all site-years. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 8 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 8. Soybean yield from each weed management treatment pooled across fields. Yield is dry weight corrected to 13% moisture. Similar letters above bars indicate no significant difference using Fisher's LSD test (P> 0.05). Error bars are standard errors, and treatments are abbreviated: NC, nontreated control; SR, seeding rate; IM, interrow mower; WZ, Weed Zapper™.
Figure 1 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 1. The interrow mower used in this experiment, attached to a John DeereṜ 5100R tractor with a three-point hitch. The mower is powered with a hydraulic system and was custom made by IRM X4, R-Tech Industries (Homewood, MB, Canada).
Figure 2. The model 6R30 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 2. The model 6R30 Weed Zapper™ used in this experiment. The generator is attached to the back of a John DeereṜ 5100R tractor with a three-point hitch. The 4.6-m electric copper boom is attached to the front of the tractor with a three-point hitch. The Weed Zapper™ was purchased from Old School Manufacturing (Sedalia, MO, USA).
Figure 3 in High seeding rates, interrow mowing, and electrocution for weed management in organic no-till planted soybean
Figure 3. Monthly temperature and precipitation in Aurora, NY, USA, in 2021 and 2022. Pink lines indicate 30-yr average.
Dataset for the article Maintaining favourable carbon balance in boreal clay soil is challenging even under no-till and crop diversification
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Long-term changes in soil carbon and nitrogen fractions in switchgrass, native grasses, and no-till corn bioenergy production systems
<p>Cellulosic bioenergy is a primary land-based climate mitigation strategy, with soil carbon (C) storage and nitrogen (N) conservation as important mitigation elements. Here, we present 13 years of soil C and N change under three cellulosic cropping systems: monoculture switchgrass (<em>Panicum virgatum</em> L.), a five native grasses polyculture, and no-till corn (<em>Zea mays</em> L.). Soil C and N fractions were measured four times over 12 years. Bulk soil C in the 0–25 cm depth at the end of the study period ranged from 28.4 (± 1.4 se) Mg C ha<sup>−1</sup> in no-till corn, to 30.8 (± 1.4) Mg C ha<sup>−1</sup> in switchgrass, and to 34.8 (± 1.4) Mg C ha<sup>−1</sup> in native grasses. Mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) ranged from 60% to 90% and particulate organic matter (POM) from 10% to 40% of total soil C. Over 12 years, total C as well as both C fractions persisted under no-till corn and switchgrass and increased under native grasses. In contrast, POM N stocks decreased 33% to 45% across systems, whereas MAOM N decreased by less than 13% and only in no-till corn. Declining POM N stocks likely reflect pre-establishment land use, which included alfalfa and manure in earlier rotations. Root production and large soil aggregate formation explained 69% (p < 0.001) and 36% (p = 0.024) of total soil C change, respectively, and 60% (p = 0.020) and 41% (p = 0.023) of soil N change, demonstrating the importance of belowground productivity and soil aggregates for producing and protecting soil C and conserving soil N. Differences between switchgrass and native grasses also indicate a dependence on plant diversity. Soil C and N benefits of bioenergy crops depend strongly on root productivity and pre-establishment land use.</p>
Data from: Long-term changes in soil carbon and nitrogen fractions in switchgrass, native grasses, and no-till corn bioenergy production systems
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Strategic tillage of no-till decreased surface and subsurface losses of dissolved phosphorus
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Initial nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane costs of converting conservation reserve program grassland to row crops under no-till vs. conventional tillage
Around 4.4 million ha of land in USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts will expire between 2013 and 2018 and some will likely return to crop production. No-till (NT) management offers the potential to reduce the global warming costs of CO2 , CH4 , and N2 O emissions during CRP conversion, but to date there have been no CRP conversion tillage comparisons. In 2009, we converted portions of three 9-21 ha CRP fields in Michigan to conventional tillage (CT) or NT soybean production and reserved a fourth field for reference. Both CO2 and N2 O fluxes increased following herbicide application in all converted fields, but in the CT treatment substantial and immediate N2 O and CO2 fluxes occurred after tillage. For the initial 201-day conversion period, average daily N2 O fluxes (g N2 O-N ha-1 d-1 ) were significantly different in the order: CT (47.5 ± 6.31, n = 6) ≫ NT (16.7 ± 2.45, n = 6) ≫ reference (2.51 ± 0.73, n = 4). Similarly, soil CO2 fluxes in CT were 1.2 times those in NT and 3.1 times those in the unconverted CRP reference field. All treatments were minor sinks for CH4 (-0.69 ± 0.42 to -1.86 ± 0.37 g CH4 -C ha-1 d-1 ) with no significant differences among treatments. The positive global warming impact (GWI) of converted soybean fields under both CT (11.5 Mg CO2 e ha-1 ) and NT (2.87 Mg CO2 e ha-1 ) was in contrast to the negative GWI of the unconverted reference field (-3.5 Mg CO2 e ha-1 ) with on-going greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. N2 O contributed 39.3% and 55.0% of the GWI under CT and NT systems with the remainder contributed by CO2 (60.7% and 45.0%, respectively). Including foregone mitigation, we conclude that NT management can reduce GHG costs by ~60% compared to CT during initial CRP conversion.
Data from: Initial nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane costs of converting conservation reserve program grassland to row crops under no-till vs. conventional tillage
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
No yield benefit from starter fertilizer in soybean no-till planted into rolled-crimped cereal rye
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Surface and subsurface phosphorus discharge from a clay soil in a 9-year study comparing no-till and plowing
No-till as a water protection measure is highly efficient in controlling erosion and particulate phosphorus (PP) loss, but tends to increase dissolved reactive P (DRP) concentrations in runoff water. In a 9-year field study on a clay soil in SW Finland, the effects of no-till and autumn plowing on surface runoff and subsurface drainage water quality were compared. The site had 2% slope and was under spring cereal cropping, with approximately replacement fertilizer P rates. Vertical stratification of soil test P that had developed during a preceding 6-year grass ley was undone by plowing, but continued to develop under no-till. During the 9-yr study period, no-till soil had 27% lower cumulative total P losses than plowed soil (10.0 vs. 13.7 kg TP ha-1). Concentrations and losses of PP were clearly lower under no-till than plowing (5.6 vs. 12.3 kg PP ha-1), but DRP loss showed the opposite trend (4.3 vs. 1.4 kg DRP ha-1). There was an increasing trend in subsurface drainflow DRP concentration under no-till, possibly because of development of a conductive pore structure from soil surface to drain depth. The potential benefit of no-till in water protection depends on how much of the PP transported to water is transformed into a bioavailable form and used by aquatic organisms. The beneficial effect of no-till in controlling P induced eutrophication at the study site would only be realized if the bioavailable share of PP exceeds 43%. Otherwise no-till would not be an efficient eutrophication control measure at this site.
Unraveling the role of soil acidity alleviation strategies on greenhouse gas emissions under conventional and no-tilled system
<p>Supplementary Material </p>
Data from: Surface and subsurface phosphorus discharge from a clay soil in a 9-year study comparing no-till and plowing
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Cover crop root contributions to soil carbon in a no-till corn bioenergy cropping system
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.