Abstract
Surface mulch is an efficient plant production technique widely used in arid and water-scarce areas. In this study, a field experiment was conducted to determine whether plastic film combined with wheat straw returning could boost grain yield of maize via optimizing photosynthetic physiological characteristics and coordinating yield components. The results showed that no tillage with wheat straw mulching and straw standing treatments had better regulation on photosynthetic physiological characteristics and had a greater impact on the increase in grain yield than conventional tillage with wheat straw incorporation and without wheat straw returning (the control treatment) in plastic film-mulched maize. Meanwhile, no tillage with wheat straw mulching had a relatively higher yield than no tillage with wheat straw standing through better regulation of photosynthetic physiological characteristics. No tillage with wheat straw mulching decreased the leaf area index (LAI) and leaf area duration (LAD) of maize before the VT stage and maintained higher LAI and LAD after the VT stage, which effectively regulated the growth and development of maize at early and late stages of development. From VT to R4 stage of maize, no tillage with wheat straw mulching had greater chlorophyll relative content, net photosynthetic rate, and transpiration rate by 7.9-17.5%, 7.7-19.2%, and 5.5-12.1% than the control, respectively. In addition, leaf water use efficiency was increased by 6.2-6.7% from the R2 to R4 stage of no tillage with wheat straw mulching in comparison to the control treatment. Thus, no tillage with wheat straw mulching had a greater grain yield of maize by 15.6% than the control, and the high yield was attributed to the synchronous increase and cooperative development of ear number, grain number per ear, and 100-grain weight. Collectively, no tillage with wheat straw mulching had a positive effect on regulating the photosynthetic physiological traits and can be recommended to enhance the grain yield of maize in arid conditions.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage with wheat straw mulching and straw standing increased maize grain yield more than conventional tillage with incorporation and the control.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulching and straw standing treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with wheat straw incorporation and without wheat straw returninge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching and straw standing treatments had better regulation on photosynthetic physiological characteristics and had a greater impact on the increase in grain yield than conventional tillage with wheat straw incorporation and without wheat straw returning (the control treatment)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching gave higher yield than straw standing.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- no tillage with wheat straw standinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching had a relatively higher yield than no tillage with wheat straw standing”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching decreased maize LAI and LAD before VT.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- leaf area index (LAI) and leaf area duration (LAD)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching decreased the leaf area index (LAI) and leaf area duration (LAD) of maize before the VT stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching maintained higher LAI and LAD after VT.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching decreased the leaf area index (LAI) and leaf area duration (LAD) of maize before the VT stage and maintained higher LAI and LAD after the VT stage”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased chlorophyll relative content from VT to R4 by 7.9-17.5%.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll relative contente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7.9-17.5%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching had greater chlorophyll relative content, net photosynthetic rate, and transpiration rate by 7.9-17.5%, 7.7-19.2%, and 5.5-12.1% than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased net photosynthetic rate by 7.7-19.2%.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7.7-19.2%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching had greater chlorophyll relative content, net photosynthetic rate, and transpiration rate by 7.9-17.5%, 7.7-19.2%, and 5.5-12.1% than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased transpiration rate by 5.5-12.1%.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- transpiration ratee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5.5-12.1%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching had greater chlorophyll relative content, net photosynthetic rate, and transpiration rate by 7.9-17.5%, 7.7-19.2%, and 5.5-12.1% than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased leaf water use efficiency by 6.2-6.7% from R2 to R4.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- leaf water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.2-6.7%e0
- Comparator
- the control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“leaf water use efficiency was increased by 6.2-6.7% from the R2 to R4 stage of no tillage with wheat straw mulching in comparison to the control treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased maize grain yield by 15.6% over control.
- Treatment
- no tillage with wheat straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 15.6%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching had a greater grain yield of maize by 15.6% than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute higher yield to coordinated increases in ear number, grains per ear, and 100-grain weight.
- Outcome
- high yielde0
- Qualifier
- synchronous increase and cooperative development of ear number, grain number per ear, and 100-grain weighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“high yield was attributed to the synchronous increase and cooperative development of ear number, grain number per ear, and 100-grain weight”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend no tillage with wheat straw mulching to enhance maize grain yield in arid conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“no tillage with wheat straw mulching had a positive effect on regulating the photosynthetic physiological traits and can be recommended to enhance the grain yield of maize in arid conditions”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
Triticum aestivum · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Triticum aestivum · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →Triticum aestivum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →Triticum aestivum · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →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 →tillage · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.