Paper · 2012 · Lucrări Ştiinţifice, Universitatea de Stiinte Agricole Şi Medicină Veterinară "Ion Ionescu de la Brad" Iaşi, Seria Agronomie

New results for maize crops cultivated in the no-tillage system at the "Ramira" agricultural company from Mârsa, Giurgiu county.

N. Şarpe; Ion Ioniţă; E. Eremia; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In Romania, maize is the main cultivated plan and maize crops are extremely important from an economic point of view. Research with the no-tillage system applied to maize crops were made in the Romanian Plain, �arpe (1968, 1987, 2000, 2008, 2009), in Banat, Motiu (2004) and in the Flood Plain of the Danube River, �arpe (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008). The results obtained in Romania confirm the results of the research made in other countries: Philips and Young (1973), Koller (1999), Derpsch (2001). “Ramira” is the first agricultural company from Giurgiu County which in 2009 cultivated maize in the no-tillage system on a 200 hectares area of land, the results obtained being quite remarkable. In the conventional system, under the weather conditions of the year 2009, the grain yield recorded from the maize crops amounted to 7,200 kg/ha, while in the no-tillage system a grain yield of 7,500 kg/ha was recorded - so the yields obtained in the technological systems were practically equal. However, there were small differences in terms of fuel consumption. For example, in the no-tillage system, a 78 litres/ha fuel consumption was recorded, while in the no-tillage system this amounted to only 25 litres/ha. Big differences were also recorded as regards the expenses in the conventional and no-tillage systems. In the conventional system, the expenses made for all the mechanical works performed from the sowing stage to the harvesting stage, these expenses amounted to RON 2,350.00 per hectare, while in the no-tillage system, they amounted to only RON 610,00 per hectare.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize grain yield under no-tillage (7,500 kg/ha) was practically equal to conventional (7,200 kg/ha) in 2009.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
no-tillage systeme0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
practically equale0
Value
7,500 kg/hae0
Qualifier
7,200 kg/hae0
Comparator
conventional systeme0
Setting
year 2009e0

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

t0

“maize crops cultivated in the no-tillage system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–63 · show in text ↑
e0

“In the conventional system, under the weather conditions of the year 2009, the grain yield recorded from the maize crops amounted to 7,200 kg/ha, while in the no-tillage system a grain yield of 7,500 kg/ha was recorded - so the yields obtained in the technological systems were practically equal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 693–988 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fuel consumption under no-tillage was 25 litres/ha, lower than the 78 litres/ha recorded in the other system.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
no-tillage systeme1
Outcome
fuel consumptione1
Direction
lowerinferrede1
Value
25 litres/hae1

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

t0

“maize crops cultivated in the no-tillage system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“a 78 litres/ha fuel consumption was recorded, while in the no-tillage system this amounted to only 25 litres/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1097–1208 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mechanical expenses under no-tillage (RON 610,00/ha) were much lower than under the conventional system (RON 2,350.00/ha).

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
no-tillage systeme2
Outcome
expensese2
Direction
lowerinferrede2
Value
RON 610,00 per hectaree2
Qualifier
RON 2,350.00 per hectaree2
Comparator
conventional systeme2

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

t0

“maize crops cultivated in the no-tillage system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–63 · show in text ↑
e2

“In the conventional system, the expenses made for all the mechanical works performed from the sowing stage to the harvesting stage, these expenses amounted to RON 2,350.00 per hectare, while in the no-tillage system, they amounted to only RON 610,00 per hectare”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1313–1574 · show in text ↑

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

49 papers: 28 positive, 21 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

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

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.