Abstract
Effects of different tillage management on the growth and yield of maize were studied from early June to September 2017. The experiment was set up with three tillage treatments: traditional shallow moldboard plow tillage with straw removal (MT), sub-soiling/ plow tillage /sub-soiling rotation with straw mulch (ST) and no-till/sub-soiling/no-till rotation with straw retention (NT). The soil compaction of different soil layers, plant height, chlorophyll content, above-ground biomass and yield were determined through the three tillage practices. Results showed that NT and ST treatments helped to reduce soil compaction, and had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared to the MT treatment. The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively. The size order of soil compaction was MT > NT > ST, and the soil compaction value was the maximum at 20 cm under MT treatment, which was 1007 kPa. Meanwhile, NT and ST also increased the plant above-ground biomass and yield of maize. Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively (P < 0.05). NT and ST tillage treatments are effective measures to improve structure of soil, contribute to plant growth and development and thereby increase in yield. Bangladesh J. Bot. 52(2): 451-458, 2023 (June) Special
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
NT and ST reduced soil compaction relative to MT.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that NT and ST treatments helped to reduce soil compaction, and had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared to the MT treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
NT and ST improved maize root growth and development relative to MT.
- Treatment
- NT and ST treatmentse0
- Outcome
- maize root growth and developmente0
- Direction
- positive effecte0
- Comparator
- MT treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results showed that NT and ST treatments helped to reduce soil compaction, and had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared to the MT treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
NT increased early chlorophyll value by 31.8% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
ST increased early chlorophyll value by 24.6% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NT increased plant height by 20.2% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
ST increased plant height by 15.9% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil compaction ranked MT greater than NT greater than ST.
Verbatim
e0“The size order of soil compaction was MT > NT > ST, and the soil compaction value was the maximum at 20 cm under MT treatment, which was 1007 kPa.”
Claim · model-written summary
MT soil compaction peaked at 1007 kPa at 20 cm.
Verbatim
e0“The size order of soil compaction was MT > NT > ST, and the soil compaction value was the maximum at 20 cm under MT treatment, which was 1007 kPa.”
Claim · model-written summary
NT increased plant dry weight 24.3% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively (P < 0.05).”
Claim · model-written summary
ST increased plant dry weight 15.7% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively (P < 0.05).”
Claim · model-written summary
NT increased grain yield 11.9% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively (P < 0.05).”
Claim · model-written summary
ST increased grain yield 14.9% relative to MT.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively (P < 0.05).”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend NT and ST to improve soil structure and maize yield.
Verbatim
e0“NT and ST tillage treatments are effective measures to improve structure of soil, contribute to plant growth and development and thereby increase in yield.”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →tillage · growth · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
organic · growth · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →organic · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →organic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
125 papers more in this group
See all 129 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →8 of 10 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.