Abstract
To better understand the effects of direct sowing under mulch-based cropping system (DMC) in Burkina Faso’s cotton production systems, randomized blocks of Fisher experimental design were implemented at Farako-Ba research station from 2010 to 2019. The study was conducted on lixisoil to evaluate DMC effects on biomass production, crops yields and soil chemical properties in a maize and cotton rotation system associated with cover crop. Conventional tillage and direct seeding without cover crop were compared to DMC under B. ruziziensis (GERM. & EVRARD), DMC under B. ruziziensis + M. cochinchinensis mulch and DMC under C. juncea (L.) mulch used in association with maize. Biomass production, crop yields and soil chemistry were evaluated. Results showed that over 10 years, no-till with or without a cover crop provided cotton seed and maize yields that were statistically equivalent to the tillage commonly practiced by farmers. Cover crop has allowed increasing the biomass production compared to Conventional Tillage and Direct Seeding. Maize yield has not varied significantly with the cover crop. After 10 years of maize and cotton rotation, the improvement raised from +27% to +38% for organic matter and from +15% to +29% for nitrogen with DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. juncea compared to Conventional Tillage on 0 - 5 cm depth. No significant differences were found on soil pH like P2O5 and K2O content. Although DMC with C. juncea used as cover crop did not provide the best biomass production, it contributes to increase nitrogen and organic matter and presents better mineral balances in 10 years of rotation. The 5 - 10 cm and 10 - 20 cm were little influenced by DMC systems.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
No-till produced cotton seed yields statistically equivalent to farmer tillage.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- no-till with or without a cover crope0
- Outcome
- cotton seede0
- Direction
- statistically equivalente0
- Comparator
- the tillage commonly practiced by farmerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no-till with or without a cover crop provided cotton seed and maize yields that were statistically equivalent to the tillage commonly practiced by farmers”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till produced maize yields statistically equivalent to farmer tillage.
- Treatment
- no-till with or without a cover crope0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- statistically equivalente0
- Comparator
- the tillage commonly practiced by farmerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no-till with or without a cover crop provided cotton seed and maize yields that were statistically equivalent to the tillage commonly practiced by farmers”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops increased biomass production relative to conventional tillage and direct seeding.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutum
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- Cover crope0
- Outcome
- biomass productione0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- Conventional Tillage and Direct Seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop has allowed increasing the biomass production compared to Conventional Tillage and Direct Seeding”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield did not vary significantly with cover crop.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield has not varied significantly with the cover crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume-containing DMC increased soil organic matter by +27% to +38% versus conventional tillage in the top 0–5 cm.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. junceae0
- Outcome
- organic mattere0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Value
- +27% to +38%e0
- Qualifier
- 0 - 5 cm depthe0
- Comparator
- Conventional Tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the improvement raised from +27% to +38% for organic matter and from +15% to +29% for nitrogen with DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. juncea compared to Conventional Tillage on 0 - 5 cm depth”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume-containing DMC increased soil nitrogen by +15% to +29% versus conventional tillage in the top 0–5 cm.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. junceae0
- Outcome
- nitrogene0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Value
- +15% to +29%e0
- Qualifier
- 0 - 5 cm depthe0
- Comparator
- Conventional Tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the improvement raised from +27% to +38% for organic matter and from +15% to +29% for nitrogen with DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. juncea compared to Conventional Tillage on 0 - 5 cm depth”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH, P2O5 and K2O showed no significant differences among systems.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. junceae1
- Outcome
- soil pH like P2O5 and K2O contente0
- Direction
- No significant differencese0
- Comparator
- Conventional Tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant differences were found on soil pH like P2O5 and K2O content”
e1“with DMC including legumes such as M. cochinchinensis and C. juncea compared to Conventional Tillage”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DMC with C. juncea did not give the best biomass production.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- DMC with C. juncea used as cover crope0
- Outcome
- best biomass productione0
- Direction
- did not providee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DMC with C. juncea used as cover crop did not provide the best biomass production”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DMC with C. juncea increased nitrogen and organic matter and had better mineral balances after ten years.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- DMC with C. juncea used as cover crope1
- Outcome
- nitrogen and organic matter and presents better mineral balancese0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- 10 years of rotatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it contributes to increase nitrogen and organic matter and presents better mineral balances in 10 years of rotation”
e1“DMC with C. juncea used as cover crop”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DMC systems had little influence on soil at 5–10 and 10–20 cm depth.
- Taxon
- Cotton and MaizeGossypium hirsutumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- DMC systemse0
- Outcome
- 5 - 10 cm and 10 - 20 cme0
- Direction
- little influencede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 5 - 10 cm and 10 - 20 cm were little influenced by DMC systems”
t0“Cotton and Maize”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →cover crop · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →transplanting · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
transplanting · soil: chemistry · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
mulching · soil: chemistry · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
cultivation system · soil: chemistry · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
cultivation system · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →8 of 17 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.