Abstract
A four-year field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of subsoiling depth on root morphology, nitrogen(N), phosphorus(P), and potassium(K) uptake, and grain yield of spring maize. The results indicated that subsoil tillage promoted root development,increased nutrient accumulation, and increased yield. Compared with conventional soil management(CK), root length, root surface area, and root dry weight at 0–80 cm soil depth under subsoil tillage to 30 cm(T1) and subsoil tillage to 50 cm(T2) were significantly increased, especially the proportions of roots in deeper soil. Root length, surface area, and dry weight differed significantly among three treatments in the order of T2 > T1 > CK at the12-leaf and early filling stages. The range of variation of root diameter in different soil layers in T2 treatment was the smallest, suggesting that roots were more likely to grow downwards with deeper subsoil tillage in soil. The accumulation of N, P, and K in subsoil tillage treatment was significantly increased, but the proportions of kernel and straw were different. In a comparison of T1 with T2, the grain accumulated more N and P, while K accumulation in kernel and straw varied in different years. Grain yield and biomass were increased by 12.8% and 14.6% on average in subsoil tillage treatments compared to conventional soil treatment. Although no significant differences between different subsoil tillage depths were observed for nutrient accumulation and grain yield, lodging resistance of plants was significantly improved in subsoil tillage to 50 cm, a characteristic that favors a high and stable yield under extreme environments.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage to 30 cm significantly increased root length, surface area and dry weight at 0–80 cm.
- Treatment
- subsoil tillage to 30 cm(T1)e0
- Outcome
- root length, root surface area, and root dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 0–80 cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- conventional soil management(CK)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional soil management(CK), root length, root surface area, and root dry weight at 0–80 cm soil depth under subsoil tillage to 30 cm(T1) and subsoil tillage to 50 cm(T2) were significantly increased”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage to 50 cm significantly increased root length, surface area and dry weight at 0–80 cm.
- Treatment
- subsoil tillage to 50 cm(T2)e0
- Outcome
- root length, root surface area, and root dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 0–80 cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- conventional soil management(CK)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional soil management(CK), root length, root surface area, and root dry weight at 0–80 cm soil depth under subsoil tillage to 30 cm(T1) and subsoil tillage to 50 cm(T2) were significantly increased”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Deeper soil held a greater proportion of roots under subsoil tillage.
- Outcome
- proportions of roots in deeper soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“especially the proportions of roots in deeper soil”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root length, surface area and dry weight ranked T2 above T1 above CK at the 12-leaf and early filling stages.
- Organ / stage
- 12-leaf and early filling stagese0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- Root length, surface area, and dry weighte0
- Direction
- T2 > T1 > CKe0
- Comparator
- T1 > CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root length, surface area, and dry weight differed significantly among three treatments in the order of T2 > T1 > CK at the12-leaf and early filling stages”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 had the smallest root-diameter variation across soil layers.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The range of variation of root diameter in different soil layers in T2 treatment was the smallest”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil tillage significantly increased nitrogen accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The accumulation of N, P, and K in subsoil tillage treatment was significantly increased”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil tillage significantly increased phosphorus accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The accumulation of N, P, and K in subsoil tillage treatment was significantly increased”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil tillage significantly increased potassium accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The accumulation of N, P, and K in subsoil tillage treatment was significantly increased”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain accumulated more nitrogen in T1 than T2.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In a comparison of T1 with T2, the grain accumulated more N and P”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain accumulated more phosphorus in T1 than T2.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In a comparison of T1 with T2, the grain accumulated more N and P”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel and straw potassium accumulation varied across years.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“K accumulation in kernel and straw varied in different years”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil tillage increased grain yield by 12.8% on average over conventional management.
- Treatment
- subsoil tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional soil treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield and biomass were increased by 12.8% and 14.6% on average in subsoil tillage treatments compared to conventional soil treatment”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsoil tillage increased biomass by 14.6% on average over conventional management.
- Treatment
- subsoil tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14.6%e0
- Comparator
- conventional soil treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield and biomass were increased by 12.8% and 14.6% on average in subsoil tillage treatments compared to conventional soil treatment”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The two subsoil tillage depths did not differ significantly in nutrient accumulation.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences between different subsoil tillage depths were observed for nutrient accumulation and grain yield”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The two subsoil tillage depths did not differ significantly in grain yield.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences between different subsoil tillage depths were observed for nutrient accumulation and grain yield”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage to 50 cm significantly improved lodging resistance.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lodging resistance of plants was significantly improved in subsoil tillage to 50 cm”
t0“spring maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →tillage · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.