Abstract
There is growing concern about the environmental impact of chemicals and the long-term effects of mechanical weeding, which inhibits weed regrowth. Mechanical-chemical synergy has become an alternative weeding practice. In this paper, the effects of reduced chemical application by mechanical-chemical synergetic weeding on maize growth and yield are studied via synergistic weeding experiments. Experiments were carried out using three chemical reduction ratios (25%, 50%, and 75%) and two chemical applications (full width and only seeding row). The existing inter- and intra-implements were integrated as weeding machinery for full range mechanical weeding. Two indicators (leaf area and dry matter weight) were defined as growth characteristics at the filling and maturity stages. The results show that the leaf area of mechanical-chemical synergistic treatments was larger than those of single mechanical or chemical weeding treatments at the filling stage, but there was no significant difference between the leaf area values of the synergetic treatments ( P =0.939). At the filling and maturity stages, the dry matter weight of mechanical-chemical weeding treatments was greater compared to the chemical weeding treatment. At the filling stage, the dry matter weight of the mechanical-chemical synergistic weeding treatments was less than that of the mechanical weeding treatment. In contrast, at the maturity stage, the dry matter weight of mechanical-chemical weeding treatments was greater, indicating that the promotional effect of the mechanical-chemical synergistic model was more pronounced at the later stage of crop growth. Single weeding or non-weeding treatment significantly affected the number of grains per ear (p=0.037) and 1000 grain weight (p=0.019), but it has been observed to have no significant effect on yield (p=0.504). The number of grains per ear, 1000 grain weight, and yield of the mechanical-chemical synergistic treatment were observed to be better than those of the chemical treatment. When compared with the full range of mechanical weeding treatments, only synergistic treatment produced a higher yield. From the perspectives of leaf area and dry matter, yield and its components, at the filling and maturity stage, the effect of mechanical-chemical synergy with 50% chemical reduction is the best recommendation as it reduces the dosage of chemical application, without significantly affecting crop growth and yield.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Synergistic weeding gave larger maize leaf area at filling than mechanical weeding alone.
- Organ / stage
- filling stagee0
- Treatment
- mechanical-chemical synergistic treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- single mechanicale0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf area of mechanical-chemical synergistic treatments was larger than those of single mechanical or chemical weeding treatments at the filling stage”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Synergistic weeding gave larger maize leaf area at filling than chemical weeding alone.
- Organ / stage
- filling stagee0
- Treatment
- mechanical-chemical synergistic treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- chemical weeding treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf area of mechanical-chemical synergistic treatments was larger than those of single mechanical or chemical weeding treatments at the filling stage”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area did not differ significantly among synergistic treatments.
- Treatment
- synergetic treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf area valuese0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Value
- P =0.939e0
- Comparator
- synergetic treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference between the leaf area values of the synergetic treatments ( P =0.939)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical-chemical weeding increased dry matter weight compared with chemical weeding at filling and maturity.
- Organ / stage
- filling and maturity stagese0
- Treatment
- mechanical-chemical weeding treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry matter weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- chemical weeding treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the filling and maturity stages, the dry matter weight of mechanical-chemical weeding treatments was greater compared to the chemical weeding treatment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At filling, synergistic weeding gave less dry matter weight than mechanical weeding.
- Organ / stage
- filling stagee0
- Treatment
- mechanical-chemical synergistic weeding treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry matter weighte0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- mechanical weeding treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the filling stage, the dry matter weight of the mechanical-chemical synergistic weeding treatments was less than that of the mechanical weeding treatment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At maturity, mechanical-chemical weeding gave greater dry matter weight than mechanical weeding.
- Organ / stage
- maturity stagee0
- Treatment
- mechanical-chemical weeding treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry matter weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- mechanical weeding treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at the maturity stage, the dry matter weight of mechanical-chemical weeding treatments was greater”
e1“than that of the mechanical weeding treatment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Single weeding or no weeding significantly affected grains per ear.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Single weeding or non-weeding treatment significantly affected the number of grains per ear (p=0.037)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Single weeding or no weeding significantly affected thousand-grain weight.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Single weeding or non-weeding treatment significantly affected the number of grains per ear (p=0.037) and 1000 grain weight (p=0.019)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Single weeding or no weeding had no significant effect on yield.
- Treatment
- Single weeding or non-weeding treatmente1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Value
- p=0.504e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant effect on yield (p=0.504)”
e1“Single weeding or non-weeding treatment significantly affected the number of grains per ear (p=0.037) and 1000 grain weight (p=0.019), but it has been observed to have no significant effect on yield (p=0.504)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Synergistic weeding gave better grains per ear, thousand-grain weight and yield than chemical weeding.
- Treatment
- mechanical-chemical synergistic treatmente0
- Outcome
- number of grains per ear, 1000 grain weight, and yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- chemical treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of grains per ear, 1000 grain weight, and yield of the mechanical-chemical synergistic treatment were observed to be better than those of the chemical treatment”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Only synergistic weeding produced higher yield than full-range mechanical weeding.
- Treatment
- synergistic treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- full range of mechanical weeding treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When compared with the full range of mechanical weeding treatments, only synergistic treatment produced a higher yield”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend synergistic weeding with a 50% chemical reduction for maize growth and yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the effect of mechanical-chemical synergy with 50% chemical reduction is the best recommendation as it reduces the dosage of chemical application, without significantly affecting crop growth and yield”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
139 papers more in this group
See all 143 papers →herbicide · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 500 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
647 papers more in this group
See all 651 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.