Paper · 2019 · Research Society and Development

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) biomass production for silage as a function of mechanized tillage systems

Henrique de Oliveira Golin; Rafael Padilha de Rezende; Victor Luan da Silva de Abreu; et al.

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Mechanical soil management has a huge impact on early plant development and can promote effects at all stages of the silage forage production cycle. Thus, this work was conducted to verify if a mechanized system of soil preparation influences the accumulation of pigeon pea and corn biomass. The experiment was conducted at the farm school of Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science. The experimental delimitation chosen was randomized blocks, the treatments were two systems of tillage (conventional and reduced), associated to two crops (Cajanus cajan L., cv. BRS Mandarim e Zea mays L. hybrid TG Status). The cv. BRS Mandarim in conventional tillage system impacted higher biomass values. In addition, the same soil preparation system promoted oscillations between the crops (P<0.05), where cv. BRS Mandarim showed biomass values 7% higher than cv. Status TG. In reduced handling system, the crops presented the same biomass productivity. Despite the increase of dry weight during the cycle of cv. BRS Mandarim biomass production, there was a reduction in the dry matter fraction, indicating that the specific weight per plant decreased at the end of the evaluation period. The tillage system that was fulfilled conventionally promoted higher estimates of pigeon pea biomass. Corn was not influenced by mechanized tillage system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under conventional tillage cv. BRS Mandarim pigeon pea had higher biomass values than under reduced handling.

Taxon
Pigeon peaCajanus cajant0
Material
cv. BRS Mandarime3
Treatment
conventional tillage systeme3
Outcome
biomass valuese3
Direction
highere3
Comparator
reduced handling systeme5

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

t0

“Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) biomass production for silage as a function of mechanized tillage systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–126 · show in text ↑
e3

“The cv. BRS Mandarim in conventional tillage system impacted higher biomass values.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–743 · show in text ↑
e5

“In reduced handling system, the crops presented the same biomass productivity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 915–993 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cv. BRS Mandarim biomass values were 7% higher than cv. Status TG in conventional tillage.

Taxon
Cajanus cajanCajanus cajane2
Material
cv. BRS Mandarime4
Treatment
soil preparation systeme4
Outcome
biomass valuese4
Direction
highere4
Value
7%e4
Comparator
cv. Status TGe4

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

e2

“the treatments were two systems of tillage (conventional and reduced), associated to two crops (Cajanus cajan L., cv. BRS Mandarim e Zea mays L. hybrid TG Status)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–658 · show in text ↑
e4

“the same soil preparation system promoted oscillations between the crops (P<0.05), where cv. BRS Mandarim showed biomass values 7% higher than cv. Status TG.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–914 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In reduced handling both crops had the same biomass productivity.

Taxon
Cajanus cajanCajanus cajane2
Treatment
reduced handling systeme5
Outcome
biomass productivitye5
Direction
the samee5

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

e2

“the treatments were two systems of tillage (conventional and reduced), associated to two crops (Cajanus cajan L., cv. BRS Mandarim e Zea mays L. hybrid TG Status)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–658 · show in text ↑
e5

“In reduced handling system, the crops presented the same biomass productivity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 915–993 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn biomass was not influenced by the mechanized tillage system.

Taxon
Zea maysZea mayse2
Treatment
mechanized tillage systeme7
Outcome
Corne7
Direction
not influencede7

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

e2

“the treatments were two systems of tillage (conventional and reduced), associated to two crops (Cajanus cajan L., cv. BRS Mandarim e Zea mays L. hybrid TG Status)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–658 · show in text ↑
e7

“Corn was not influenced by mechanized tillage system.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1331–1384 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The dry matter fraction of cv. BRS Mandarim biomass was reduced during the evaluation cycle.

Taxon
Cajanus cajanCajanus cajane2
Material
cv. BRS Mandarime2
Outcome
dry matter fractione0
Direction
reductione0

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

e2

“the treatments were two systems of tillage (conventional and reduced), associated to two crops (Cajanus cajan L., cv. BRS Mandarim e Zea mays L. hybrid TG Status)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–658 · show in text ↑
e0

“there was a reduction in the dry matter fraction, indicating that the specific weight per plant decreased at the end of the evaluation period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1227 · show in text ↑

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

45 papers: 27 positive, 18 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

41 papers more in this group

See all 45 papers →

tillage · growth · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.