Abstract
A two-year field experiment was conducted to elucidate the adaptive growth mechanism of maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT). The biomass accumulation of ST plants was significantly lower than CT until V14 (14th leaf), but restored thereafter with one below-ear-node leaf reduced. At silking, the accumulation of nitrogen (N) was reduced by 8.3–10.7% compared to CT. During post-silking, vegetative-N remobilization was reduced by 20.4%, post-silking N uptake increased by 33.9% in ST compared to CT. Leaf senescence was delayed and more green leaf area at physiological maturity in ST. It is concluded that ST plants have the mechanism of ‘Recovery Growth Adaptation’ to get the similar yield as in CT plants: (1) facilitating growth rate at around V14 when the soil temperature was greatly improved to stabilize ear growth and grain number; (2) getting to silking the same time as in CT plants, so as to ensure the duration of grain filling; (3) increasing post-silking N uptake to fulfill the demand of grain development and reduce leaf N remobilization, so as to maintain leaf function and increase thousand-grain weight, which compensate for the loss of grain number per ear.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass accumulation of strip-till maize was significantly lower than conventional-till until V14 but restored thereafter.
- Organ / stage
- V14 (14th leaf)e1
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- biomass accumulatione1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- conventional-till (CT)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e1“The biomass accumulation of ST plants was significantly lower than CT until V14 (14th leaf), but restored thereafter”
Claim · model-written summary
At silking, nitrogen accumulation in strip-till maize was reduced by 8.3-10.7% compared with conventional-till.
- Organ / stage
- silkinge2
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- accumulation of nitrogen (N)e2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 8.3–10.7%e2
- Comparator
- conventional-till (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e2“At silking, the accumulation of nitrogen (N) was reduced by 8.3–10.7% compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
During post-silking, vegetative-N remobilization in strip-till maize was reduced by 20.4% relative to conventional-till.
- Organ / stage
- post-silkinge3
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- vegetative-N remobilizatione3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 20.4%e3
- Comparator
- conventional-till (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e3“During post-silking, vegetative-N remobilization was reduced by 20.4%”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-silking N uptake increased by 33.9% in strip-till maize compared with conventional-till.
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- post-silking N uptakee4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 33.9%e4
- Comparator
- conventional-till (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e4“post-silking N uptake increased by 33.9% in ST compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf senescence was delayed in strip-till maize relative to conventional-till.
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- Leaf senescencee5
- Direction
- delayede5
- Comparator
- conventional-till (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e5“Leaf senescence was delayed and more green leaf area at physiological maturity in ST”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till maize had more green leaf area at physiological maturity than conventional-till.
- Organ / stage
- physiological maturitye6
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- green leaf areae6
- Direction
- moree6
- Comparator
- conventional-till (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e6“more green leaf area at physiological maturity in ST”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that strip-till maize plants have a Recovery Growth Adaptation mechanism that gives a yield similar to conventional-till plants.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e7“ST plants have the mechanism of ‘Recovery Growth Adaptation’ to get the similar yield as in CT plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret increased post-silking N uptake and reduced leaf N remobilization as maintaining leaf function and increasing thousand-grain weight, compensating for the lower grain number per ear.
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- thousand-grain weighte1
- Qualifier
- compensate for the loss of grain number per eare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e1“increasing post-silking N uptake to fulfill the demand of grain development and reduce leaf N remobilization, so as to maintain leaf function and increase thousand-grain weight, which compensate for the loss of grain number per ear”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret faster growth around V14, when soil temperature was greatly improved, as stabilizing ear growth and grain number in strip-till maize.
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- ear growth and grain numbere2
- Qualifier
- soil temperature was greatly improvede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e2“facilitating growth rate at around V14 when the soil temperature was greatly improved to stabilize ear growth and grain number”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret reaching silking at the same time as conventional-till plants as ensuring the duration of grain filling in strip-till maize.
- Treatment
- strip-till (ST)e0
- Outcome
- duration of grain fillinge3
- Qualifier
- getting to silking the same time as in CT plantse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize under strip-till (ST) compared with conventional-till (CT)”
e3“getting to silking the same time as in CT plants, so as to ensure the duration of grain filling”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.