Abstract
Despite the agronomic, economic and food values of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill), there is still dearth of information on the tillage need and the implications of surface mulch for the crop in the eastern part of the forest-savanna transition zone of Nigeria. This study was therefore carried out on a sandy loam Ultisol at Nsukka with a sub-humid climate, during 2006 and 2007 cropping seasons. Our objective was to devise an appropriate tillage method for the crop from evaluated effects of no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulch on selected key agronomic indices. Each of the NT and the CT was either unmulched (U) or mulched (M) in a split-plot, giving four treatments/tillage methods (NTU, NTM, CTU and CTM) randomized in four blocks. Rainfall was more favorable in the first than in the second season. The mean seasonal soil water storage (range, 99-109 mm) within 0.5-m soil layer differed among the treatments (NTU < CTU < NTM = CTM). However, for the first and second seasons, both water use (582-616 and 667-709 mm respectively) and grain yield (0.71-0.81 and 1.22-1.91 Mg ha-1 respectively) were not different. Mulch lowered the crop water use but had no influence on grain yield. Water use efficiency was enhanced with mulch only in the second season. Although either of the two mulch treatments (NTM/CTM) would be suitable for growing soybean especially in years of unfavorably distributed rainfall, NTM is a more rational choice than CTM. Rainfall adequacy at the critical reproductive stage of the crop showed to be a more important yield factor than the tested tillage methods.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Mean seasonal soil water storage (99-109 mm in the 0.5-m layer) differed among the tillage-mulch treatments, ordered NTU < CTU < NTM = CTM.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulche2
- Outcome
- mean seasonal soil water storagee1
- Direction
- NTU < CTU < NTM = CTMe1
- Value
- 99-109 mme1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“The mean seasonal soil water storage (range, 99-109 mm) within 0.5-m soil layer differed among the treatments (NTU < CTU < NTM = CTM)”
e2“no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use did not differ among treatments in either season (582-616 mm in the first, 667-709 mm in the second).
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulche2
- Outcome
- water usee1
- Direction
- not differente1
- Value
- 582-616 and 667-709 mme1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“both water use (582-616 and 667-709 mm respectively) and grain yield (0.71-0.81 and 1.22-1.91 Mg ha-1 respectively) were not different”
e2“no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield did not differ among treatments in either season (0.71-0.81 Mg/ha in the first, 1.22-1.91 Mg/ha in the second).
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulche2
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- not differente1
- Value
- 0.71-0.81 and 1.22-1.91 Mg ha-1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“both water use (582-616 and 667-709 mm respectively) and grain yield (0.71-0.81 and 1.22-1.91 Mg ha-1 respectively) were not different”
e2“no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT) and mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch lowered the crop water use of soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- Mulche1
- Outcome
- crop water usee1
- Direction
- lowerede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“Mulch lowered the crop water use”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch had no influence on soybean grain yield.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- Mulche2
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- no influencee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“had no influence on grain yield”
e2“Mulch lowered the crop water use”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of soybean was enhanced with mulch, only in the second season.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- mulche1
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- enhancede1
- Qualifier
- only in the second seasone1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“Water use efficiency was enhanced with mulch only in the second season”
Claim · model-written summary
Either mulch treatment (NTM or CTM) would be suitable for growing soybean, especially in years of unfavorably distributed rainfall.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- mulch treatments (NTM/CTM)e1
- Outcome
- would be suitable for growing soybeane1
- Qualifier
- years of unfavorably distributed rainfalle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“either of the two mulch treatments (NTM/CTM) would be suitable for growing soybean especially in years of unfavorably distributed rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with mulch (NTM) is a more rational choice than conventional tillage with mulch (CTM) for soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- NTM is a more rational choice than CTMe1
- Comparator
- CTMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“NTM is a more rational choice than CTM”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainfall adequacy at the critical reproductive stage was a more important yield factor than the tested tillage methods.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Organ / stage
- critical reproductive stagee1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Comparator
- tested tillage methodse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)”
e1“Rainfall adequacy at the critical reproductive stage of the crop showed to be a more important yield factor than the tested tillage methods”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →mulching · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.