Abstract
Abstract The effects of four cassava populations (8, 10, 13 and 20 × 10 3 plants per ha −1 ) on soil physical properties, moisture retention characteristics, moisture potential profiles and moisture depletion patterns were compared with uncropped plots receiving no cultivation of an Ultisol in the humid region in eastern Nigeria. The growing of cassava decreased the bulk density of 0–10 cm depth by 17% in comparison with the uncultivated soil (1.53 Mg m −3 ). The bulk density of the 10–20 cm depth was higher for the cropped than the uncropped control plots. The moisture retention below a suction of pF 2.4 for 0–10 cm depth was less for the uncultivated control than for soil growing cassava. The reverse was found in moisture retention characteristics of the 20–40 cm depth especially for low suction ranges of pF below 0.8. The 0–10 cm soil layer of uncropped control dried more rapidly than the cropped soil. Below 10 cm, however, cassava depleted moisture reserves more rapidly than in uncropped control. The effect of plant population on soil moisture depletion was more conspicuous within than between rows. Significant differences in water flux and in water uptake from different horizons were observed among various population densities. The total water loss was the highest for the least plant population for the between‐row zone, and for the highest population for the within‐row zone. Plant population had no effect on tuber and stalk yield.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava cultivation reduced surface soil bulk density by 17% against uncultivated soil.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentae0 - Treatment
- growing of cassavae0
- Outcome
- bulk density of 0–10 cm depthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Qualifier
- 1.53 Mg m −3e0
- Comparator
- uncultivated soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of cassava decreased the bulk density of 0–10 cm depth by 17% in comparison with the uncultivated soil (1.53 Mg m −3 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface bulk density was higher in cropped than uncropped plots.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- croppede0
- Outcome
- bulk density of the 10–20 cm depthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- uncropped control plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The bulk density of the 10–20 cm depth was higher for the cropped than the uncropped control plots”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface moisture retention below pF 2.4 was greater with cassava than in uncultivated soil.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- soil growing cassavae0
- Outcome
- moisture retention below a suction of pF 2.4 for 0–10 cm depthe0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- uncultivated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The moisture retention below a suction of pF 2.4 for 0–10 cm depth was less for the uncultivated control than for soil growing cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
At 20–40 cm the moisture retention relationship reversed, especially below pF 0.8.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Outcome
- moisture retention characteristics of the 20–40 cm depthe0
- Direction
- reversee0
- Qualifier
- low suction ranges of pF below 0.8e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reverse was found in moisture retention characteristics of the 20–40 cm depth especially for low suction ranges of pF below 0.8”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncropped surface soil dried faster than cropped soil.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- cropped soile0
- Outcome
- 0–10 cm soil layere0
- Direction
- more rapidlye0
- Comparator
- uncropped controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 0–10 cm soil layer of uncropped control dried more rapidly than the cropped soil”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Below 10 cm, cassava depleted moisture faster than uncropped soil.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- cassavae0
- Outcome
- moisture reservese0
- Direction
- more rapidlye0
- Comparator
- uncropped controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Below 10 cm, however, cassava depleted moisture reserves more rapidly than in uncropped control”
Claim · model-written summary
Population affected soil moisture depletion more within than between rows.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Outcome
- soil moisture depletione0
- Direction
- more conspicuouse0
- Setting
- within than between rowse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of plant population on soil moisture depletion was more conspicuous within than between rows”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Water flux differed significantly among population densities.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- population densitiese0
- Outcome
- water fluxe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences in water flux and in water uptake from different horizons were observed among various population densities”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Water uptake from horizons differed significantly among population densities.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- population densitiese0
- Outcome
- water uptake from different horizonse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences in water flux and in water uptake from different horizons were observed among various population densities”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Between rows, total water loss was highest at the least population.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- least plant populatione0
- Outcome
- total water losse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Setting
- between‐row zonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The total water loss was the highest for the least plant population for the between‐row zone”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Within rows, total water loss was highest at the highest population.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- highest populatione0
- Outcome
- total water losse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Setting
- within‐row zonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The total water loss was the highest for the least plant population for the between‐row zone, and for the highest population for the within‐row zone”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Population had no effect on tuber and stalk yield.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- Plant populatione0
- Outcome
- tuber and stalk yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant population had no effect on tuber and stalk yield”
t0“cassava”
t1“cassava”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.