Paper · 1980 · Experimental Agriculture

Effects of No-Tillage and Ploughing on Roots of Maize and Leguminous Crops

P. R. Maurya; R. Lal

4
claims
4
verbatim quotes
29
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SUMMARY Root development of maize ( Zea mays ), soyabean ( Glycine max ), cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ), and pigeonpea ( Cajanus cajan ) was investigated with and without tillage. Observations were made at different growth stages by digging trenches normal to the rows, by core sampling, and by observing growth of roots against glass windows. There were more maize roots in the surface layer (0–10 cm) with no-tillage than in conventionally ploughed plots, but at 10–40 cm maize roots were more abundant and soyabean and pigeonpea roots less so in the no-tillage plots.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize had more roots at 0–10 cm under no tillage than conventional ploughing.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
no-tillagee0
Outcome
maize rootse0
Direction
moree0
Qualifier
surface layer (0–10 cm)e0
Comparator
conventionally ploughed plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were more maize roots in the surface layer (0–10 cm) with no-tillage than in conventionally ploughed plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 343–455 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 10–40 cm maize roots were more abundant under no tillage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
no-tillage plotse0
Outcome
maize rootse0
Direction
more abundante0
Qualifier
10–40 cme0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“at 10–40 cm maize roots were more abundant and soyabean and pigeonpea roots less so in the no-tillage plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 461–568 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 10–40 cm soyabean roots were less abundant under no tillage.

Taxon
soyabeane0
Treatment
no-tillage plotse0
Outcome
soyabean and pigeonpea rootse0
Direction
less soe0
Qualifier
10–40 cme0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“at 10–40 cm maize roots were more abundant and soyabean and pigeonpea roots less so in the no-tillage plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 461–568 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 10–40 cm pigeonpea roots were less abundant under no tillage.

Taxon
pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
Treatment
no-tillage plotse0
Outcome
pigeonpea rootse0
Direction
less soe0
Qualifier
10–40 cme0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“at 10–40 cm maize roots were more abundant and soyabean and pigeonpea roots less so in the no-tillage plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 461–568 · show in text ↑

tillage · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

45 papers: 27 positive, 18 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

41 papers more in this group

See all 45 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.