Abstract
An upland red soil experiment was conducted from 2006 to 2012 to determine the effects of rice straw mulching on seasonal drought resistance of summer maize.The study was conducted at the Taoyuan Agro-ecological Experimental Station of Chinese Academy of Sciences,Hunan Province,China.Rice straw was applied at the rates of 0(CK),5 000 kg·hm-2(T1),10 000 kg·hm-2(T2) and 15 000 kg·hm-2(T3) in field plots.The results showed that compared with CK(control),total soil available moisture in T1,T2 and T3 increased by 6.8%(P 0.05),19.3%(P 0.05) and 28.4%(P 0.05),respectively.In 2012,maize photosynthetic rate at filling stages in T1,T2 and T3 respectively increased by 24.1%,40.3% and 53.8%.Also T1,T2 and T3 were respectively higher in photosynthetic rate than CK by 20.0%,40.3% and 37.9% at maturity stage.At drought occurrence rate of 18.2% per ten days,there was no significant difference in maize yield between rice straw mulching and CK.Yield difference was significant(P 0.05) when drought occurrence rate was 18.2% 63.6% per ten days.When drought occurrence rate was 18.2% 36.4% per ten days,T1 had the maximum yield.When drought occurrence rate reached 54.5% per ten days,T3 produced the maximum yield.When drought occurrence rate exceeded 63.6% per ten day,rice straw mulching was no longer suitable for resisting drought.The recommended amount of straw mulch in the southern hilly red soils was 5 000 kg·hm-2.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
T1 increased available soil moisture by 6.8% versus CK.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total soil available moisture in T1,T2 and T3 increased by 6.8%(P 0.05),19.3%(P 0.05) and 28.4%(P 0.05),respectively”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 increased available soil moisture by 19.3% versus CK.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total soil available moisture in T1,T2 and T3 increased by 6.8%(P 0.05),19.3%(P 0.05) and 28.4%(P 0.05),respectively”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 increased available soil moisture by 28.4% versus CK.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total soil available moisture in T1,T2 and T3 increased by 6.8%(P 0.05),19.3%(P 0.05) and 28.4%(P 0.05),respectively”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At filling, T1 increased maize photosynthetic rate by 24.1%.
- Organ / stage
- filling stagese0
- Treatment
- T1e0
- Outcome
- maize photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.1%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize photosynthetic rate at filling stages in T1,T2 and T3 respectively increased by 24.1%,40.3% and 53.8%”
Claim · model-written summary
At filling, T2 increased maize photosynthetic rate by 40.3%.
- Organ / stage
- filling stagese0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- maize photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 40.3%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize photosynthetic rate at filling stages in T1,T2 and T3 respectively increased by 24.1%,40.3% and 53.8%”
Claim · model-written summary
At filling, T3 increased maize photosynthetic rate by 53.8%.
- Organ / stage
- filling stagese0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- maize photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 53.8%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize photosynthetic rate at filling stages in T1,T2 and T3 respectively increased by 24.1%,40.3% and 53.8%”
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity, T1 photosynthetic rate exceeded CK by 20.0%.
- Organ / stage
- maturity stagee0
- Treatment
- T1e0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20.0%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T1,T2 and T3 were respectively higher in photosynthetic rate than CK by 20.0%,40.3% and 37.9% at maturity stage”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity, T2 photosynthetic rate exceeded CK by 40.3%.
- Organ / stage
- maturity stagee0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 40.3%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T1,T2 and T3 were respectively higher in photosynthetic rate than CK by 20.0%,40.3% and 37.9% at maturity stage”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity, T3 photosynthetic rate exceeded CK by 37.9%.
- Organ / stage
- maturity stagee0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 37.9%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T1,T2 and T3 were respectively higher in photosynthetic rate than CK by 20.0%,40.3% and 37.9% at maturity stage”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 18.2% drought occurrence per ten days, mulching did not significantly change maize yield.
- Treatment
- rice straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Qualifier
- 18.2% per ten dayse0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At drought occurrence rate of 18.2% per ten days,there was no significant difference in maize yield between rice straw mulching and CK”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield difference became significant across the stated drought range.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield difference was significant(P 0.05) when drought occurrence rate was 18.2% 63.6% per ten days”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T1 gave maximum yield at drought occurrence of 18.2% to 36.4% per ten days.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When drought occurrence rate was 18.2% 36.4% per ten days,T1 had the maximum yield”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 gave maximum yield at 54.5% drought occurrence per ten days.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When drought occurrence rate reached 54.5% per ten days,T3 produced the maximum yield”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching was unsuitable for drought resistance above 63.6% drought occurrence per ten days.
- Outcome
- rice straw mulching was no longer suitable for resisting droughte0
- Qualifier
- exceeded 63.6% per ten daye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When drought occurrence rate exceeded 63.6% per ten day,rice straw mulching was no longer suitable for resisting drought”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended 5 000 kg·hm-2 straw mulch in southern hilly red soils.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The recommended amount of straw mulch in the southern hilly red soils was 5 000 kg·hm-2”
t0“summer maize”
The same questions in other papers
Oryza sativa · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 330 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 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.