Abstract
This study provides understandings of the effect of mulching on the growth, development, and water consumption of dry maize. Parameters including soil temperature, soil water-filled pore space (WFPS), water storage capacity, water consumption, grain yield, water-use efficiency, and biomass yields were followed and analyzed by applying straw mulching (SM), gravel mulching (GM), and plastic film mulching (FM). The results show that the soil temperature (0–20 cm) throughout the whole observation period (2011–2013) was significantly increased by applying GM and FM, while SM reduced the soil temperature. SM increased the WFPS, while FM and GM showed no significant effect. SM and FM increased the soil water storage and water-use efficiency in the early stages of maize growth (from sowing to vegetative growth) compared with using GM. With the progress of time, fewer differences between all treatments were observed. Water consumption of the three treatments was in the order of SM < FM < GM, indicating that SM was the most effective in preventing water evaporation. The resulting yields of corn also varied. Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively. In contrast, GM showed no significant difference in the three years, and SM showed no significant difference in 2011 and 2012 but increased the yield by 2.2 ton/ha in 2013. FM is shown to be an effective method for increasing the yields of corn for the studied region, GM is not recommended, and SM is the most effective in improving the water availability in the soil, while its effect on corn yields needs to be further explored.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Gravel and plastic film mulching significantly increased soil temperature at 0-20 cm, while straw mulching reduced it.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e0“the soil temperature (0–20 cm) throughout the whole observation period (2011–2013) was significantly increased by applying GM and FM, while SM reduced the soil temperature”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching increased soil water-filled pore space (WFPS).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e1“SM increased the WFPS, while FM and GM showed no significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film and gravel mulching showed no significant effect on WFPS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e1“SM increased the WFPS, while FM and GM showed no significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw and plastic film mulching increased soil water storage and water-use efficiency in the early stages of maize growth compared with gravel mulching.
- Treatment
- SM and FMe2
- Outcome
- soil water storage and water-use efficiencye2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in the early stages of maize growth (from sowing to vegetative growth)e2
- Comparator
- GMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e2“SM and FM increased the soil water storage and water-use efficiency in the early stages of maize growth (from sowing to vegetative growth) compared with using GM”
Claim · model-written summary
Water consumption of the three mulching treatments followed the order SM < FM < GM.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e3“Water consumption of the three treatments was in the order of SM < FM < GM, indicating that SM was the most effective in preventing water evaporation”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching was the most effective treatment in preventing water evaporation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e3“Water consumption of the three treatments was in the order of SM < FM < GM, indicating that SM was the most effective in preventing water evaporation”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching significantly increased maize yield relative to control by 1.7 ton/ha in one of the three tested years.
- Treatment
- FMe4
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 1.7e4
- Qualifier
- in the tested three years, respectivelye4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e4“Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching significantly increased maize yield relative to control by 0.5 ton/ha in one of the three tested years.
- Treatment
- FMe4
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 0.5e4
- Qualifier
- in the tested three years, respectivelye4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e4“Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching significantly increased maize yield relative to control by 2.2 ton/ha in one of the three tested years.
- Treatment
- FMe4
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 2.2e4
- Qualifier
- in the tested three years, respectivelye4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e4“Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Gravel mulching showed no significant difference in maize yield relative to control in the three years.
- Treatment
- GMe5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- no significant differencee5
- Qualifier
- in the three yearse5
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e4“Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively”
e5“In contrast, GM showed no significant difference in the three years, and SM showed no significant difference in 2011 and 2012 but increased the yield by 2.2 ton/ha in 2013”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching showed no significant difference in maize yield relative to control in 2011 and 2012.
- Treatment
- SMe5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- no significant differencee5
- Qualifier
- in 2011 and 2012e5
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e4“Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively”
e5“In contrast, GM showed no significant difference in the three years, and SM showed no significant difference in 2011 and 2012 but increased the yield by 2.2 ton/ha in 2013”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching increased maize yield relative to control by 2.2 ton/ha in 2013.
- Treatment
- SMe5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 2.2 ton/hae5
- Qualifier
- in 2013e5
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e4“Compared with the control, FM significantly increased the yields by 1.7, 0.5, and 2.2 ton/ha in the tested three years, respectively”
e5“In contrast, GM showed no significant difference in the three years, and SM showed no significant difference in 2011 and 2012 but increased the yield by 2.2 ton/ha in 2013”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend against gravel mulching for maize in the studied region.
- Outcome
- GM is not recommendede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e6“GM is not recommended”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching is the most effective method for improving soil water availability in maize fields.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effects of Surface Mulching on the Growth and Water Consumption of Maize”
e7“SM is the most effective in improving the water availability in the soil”
The same questions in other papers
alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
organic · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- negative
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.