Abstract
Abstract The effects of eight methods of preplanning tillage systems were investigated on maize growth and yield for eight consecutive crops grown from 1980 to 1983 on an Alfisol in south‐west Nigeria. The tillage systems were: (A) no‐till with residue mulch, (B) no‐till with chiselling in the row zone to 50 cm depth, (C) mouldboard ploughing followed by (fb) harrowing, (D) disc ploughing fb rotovation, (E) no‐till without residue mulch, (F) mouldboard ploughing at the end of rains, (G) mouldboard ploughing fb two harrowings with residue mulch (H) mouldboard ploughing fb two harrowings and ridging. In seasons with infrequent rains and long dry spells, seedling emergence was significantly suppressed on ridged plots (treatment H). The 1500 h soil temperature on the ridged seedbed (H) at 5 cm depth exceeded 40°C, and was about 10°C more than in no‐till with mulch (A). The oxygen diffusion rate (ODR) at 10 cm depth was the most in the no‐till mulch and the least in the furrow bottoms. The soil moisture reserve was larger in the no‐till plots than in the ploughed treatments. Plant height and vigour were adversely affected on ridges in seasons with frequent dry spells. In these seasons, maize grain yield declined with the increasing intensity of mechanical tillage. For the eight seasons, the cumulative benefits in grain yield of all the no‐till treatments were 1.76 and 0.32 tonnes ha −1 in comparison with ridges (H) and ploughed (C, D, F, G) treatments, respectively. The mean seasonal yield was 3.37 and 1.00 t ha −1 for the first and second seasons respectively. The seasonal fluctuations in grain yield were related to rainfall amount and the length of growing season.
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
Ridge tillage significantly suppressed maize seedling emergence during infrequent rain and long dry spells.
- Treatment
- ridged plots (treatment H)e0
- Outcome
- seedling emergencee0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Qualifier
- seasons with infrequent rains and long dry spellse0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In seasons with infrequent rains and long dry spells, seedling emergence was significantly suppressed on ridged plots (treatment H)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The ridged seedbed reached soil temperatures over 40°C at 5 cm, about 10°C warmer than no-till mulch.
- Treatment
- ridged seedbed (H)e0
- Outcome
- soil temperaturee0
- Direction
- more thane0
- Value
- 40°Ce0
- Qualifier
- at 5 cm depthe0
- Comparator
- no‐till with mulch (A)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The 1500 h soil temperature on the ridged seedbed (H) at 5 cm depth exceeded 40°C, and was about 10°C more than in no‐till with mulch (A)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil oxygen diffusion rate was greatest under no-till mulch.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The oxygen diffusion rate (ODR) at 10 cm depth was the most in the no‐till mulch and the least in the furrow bottoms”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil oxygen diffusion rate was lowest in furrow bottoms.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The oxygen diffusion rate (ODR) at 10 cm depth was the most in the no‐till mulch and the least in the furrow bottoms”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till plots retained more soil moisture than ploughed treatments.
- Treatment
- no‐till plotse0
- Outcome
- soil moisture reservee0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- ploughed treatmentse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The soil moisture reserve was larger in the no‐till plots than in the ploughed treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridges adversely affected maize plant height and vigour during frequent dry spells.
- Treatment
- ridgese0
- Outcome
- Plant height and vigoure0
- Direction
- adversely affectede0
- Qualifier
- seasons with frequent dry spellse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plant height and vigour were adversely affected on ridges in seasons with frequent dry spells”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield declined as mechanical tillage intensity increased during dry-spell seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In these seasons, maize grain yield declined with the increasing intensity of mechanical tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative no-till grain yield exceeded ridges by 1.76 tonnes ha −1 over eight seasons.
- Treatment
- no‐till treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- benefitse0
- Value
- 1.76e0
- Comparator
- ridges (H)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the eight seasons, the cumulative benefits in grain yield of all the no‐till treatments were 1.76 and 0.32 tonnes ha −1 in comparison with ridges (H) and ploughed (C, D, F, G) treatments, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative no-till grain yield exceeded ploughed treatments by 0.32 tonnes ha −1.
- Treatment
- no‐till treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- benefitse0
- Value
- 0.32 tonnes ha −1e0
- Comparator
- ploughed (C, D, F, G) treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the eight seasons, the cumulative benefits in grain yield of all the no‐till treatments were 1.76 and 0.32 tonnes ha −1 in comparison with ridges (H) and ploughed (C, D, F, G) treatments, respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean seasonal maize yield was 3.37 t ha −1 in first seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean seasonal yield was 3.37 and 1.00 t ha −1 for the first and second seasons respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean seasonal maize yield was 1.00 t ha −1 in second seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean seasonal yield was 3.37 and 1.00 t ha −1 for the first and second seasons respectively”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal maize grain-yield fluctuation was related to rainfall amount and growing-season length.
- Outcome
- seasonal fluctuations in grain yielde0
- Setting
- rainfall amount and the length of growing seasone0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The seasonal fluctuations in grain yield were related to rainfall amount and the length of growing season”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.