Abstract
Despite field mulching has been widely adopted to improve crop productivity, agro-ecosystem sustainability of this technology in arid and semi-arid areas is inconclusive. We examined the response of yield stability, changes in soil water storage (ΔSWS), nitrogen (N) budget, soil total nitrogen (TN) content and soil organic carbon (SOC) content to furrow-ridge tillage and film or straw field mulching practices in a 6-year field experiment of rain-fed spring maize (Zea mays L.) on the Loess Plateau from 2016 to 2021. Five tillage practices included conventional tillage (CT), ridge tillage (RT), flat planting with plastic film mulching (FM), ridge tillage with plastic film mulching on ridge (RTF) and maize straw mulching (SM). Nitrogen application rates were 0 and 225 kg N ha−1. Maize yield and yield sustainability index (SYI) of plastic film mulching increased by 26.8%− 73.4% and 4.4%− 13.9%, respectively, compared with CT, and coefficient of variation (CV) of plastic film mulching declined by 0.7%− 10.7% relative to that of CT. The average ΔSWS of all tillage patterns were positive, and the rainwater use potential was 88.3–96.9%. The N budget in all practices was positive under N applied treatments but negative without N input. Without N application, N consumption was substantially exacerbated by plastic film mulching, whereas it was mitigated to some extent by SM. The TN and SOC contents were maintained under plastic film mulching. Soil TN and SOC contents in SM increased by 27.1–29.8% and 22.3–33.3%, respectively, in tested stage. However, its yield varied substantially, particularly under no N application. Small yield increase and higher CV and lower SYI occurred in RT practice. The SOC declined similar to CT. Overall, there was higher variation of yield in SM practice. The SOC appeared to decline in RT practice. The plastic film mulching was a promising practice to increase and stabilize maize yields, improve the rainfall use potential, increase or maintain the TN and SOC contents in semi-arid regions. However, attention should be paid to the impact of microplastic contamination in future research.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching raised maize yield by 26.8%− 73.4% versus conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- plastic film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- Maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 26.8%− 73.4%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
- Setting
- Loess Plateaue1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield and yield sustainability index (SYI) of plastic film mulching increased by 26.8%− 73.4% and 4.4%− 13.9%, respectively, compared with CT”
e1“rain-fed spring maize (Zea mays L.) on the Loess Plateau”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching raised yield sustainability index by 4.4%− 13.9%.
- Treatment
- plastic film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- yield sustainability index (SYI)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.4%− 13.9%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yield and yield sustainability index (SYI) of plastic film mulching increased by 26.8%− 73.4% and 4.4%− 13.9%, respectively, compared with CT”
e1“rain-fed spring maize (Zea mays L.) on the Loess Plateau”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching reduced maize yield variation by 0.7%− 10.7%.
- Treatment
- plastic film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- coefficient of variation (CV)e0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 0.7%− 10.7%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“coefficient of variation (CV) of plastic film mulching declined by 0.7%− 10.7% relative to that of CT”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Average change in soil water storage was positive for every tillage pattern.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average ΔSWS of all tillage patterns were positive, and the rainwater use potential was 88.3–96.9%.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainwater use potential reached 88.3–96.9%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average ΔSWS of all tillage patterns were positive, and the rainwater use potential was 88.3–96.9%.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen budgets were positive with nitrogen input and negative without it.
- Treatment
- N applied treatmentse0
- Outcome
- N budgete0
- Direction
- positivee0
- Qualifier
- negative without N inpute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N budget in all practices was positive under N applied treatments but negative without N input.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching exacerbated nitrogen consumption without nitrogen application.
- Treatment
- plastic film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- N consumptione0
- Direction
- exacerbatede0
- Qualifier
- Without N applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Without N application, N consumption was substantially exacerbated by plastic film mulching”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching mitigated nitrogen consumption without nitrogen input.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Without N application, N consumption was substantially exacerbated by plastic film mulching, whereas it was mitigated to some extent by SM.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic film mulching maintained soil total nitrogen and organic carbon.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The TN and SOC contents were maintained under plastic film mulching.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching raised soil total nitrogen by 27.1–29.8%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil TN and SOC contents in SM increased by 27.1–29.8% and 22.3–33.3%, respectively, in tested stage.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching raised soil organic carbon by 22.3–33.3%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil TN and SOC contents in SM increased by 27.1–29.8% and 22.3–33.3%, respectively, in tested stage.”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching produced variable yield, especially without nitrogen.
- Treatment
- maize straw mulchinge1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- varied substantiallye0
- Qualifier
- under no N applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, its yield varied substantially, particularly under no N application.”
e1“maize straw mulching (SM)”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridge tillage yielded only a small increase and a higher coefficient of variation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Small yield increase and higher CV and lower SYI occurred in RT practice.”
e1“ridge tillage (RT)”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridge tillage increased yield coefficient of variation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Small yield increase and higher CV and lower SYI occurred in RT practice.”
e1“ridge tillage (RT)”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridge tillage lowered yield sustainability index.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Small yield increase and higher CV and lower SYI occurred in RT practice.”
e1“ridge tillage (RT)”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon declined under ridge tillage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SOC appeared to decline in RT practice.”
e1“ridge tillage (RT)”
t0“spring maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend plastic film mulching to stabilize maize yield and improve soil resources.
- Outcome
- increase and stabilize maize yields, improve the rainfall use potential, increase or maintain the TN and SOC contentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The plastic film mulching was a promising practice to increase and stabilize maize yields, improve the rainfall use potential, increase or maintain the TN and SOC contents in semi-arid regions.”
t0“spring maize”
The same questions in other papers
organic · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →mulching · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →mulching · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →organic · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
72 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 68 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →organic · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
97 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
116 papers more in this group
See all 120 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 330 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.