Paper · 2023 · International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research

Effect of Selected Conservation Tillage Practices on Soil Moisture Content and Sorghum Yield under Rainfed Conditions on Sandy Loam Soil

Alsalam Unıversıty; Ayman Hassan Sulıman Khalıl Ayman

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

In arid and semi-arid regions, the key to increase crop production is maximizing infiltration at the expense of surface runoff. One way of achieving such objectives could be the introduction of conservation tillage practices using appropriate equipment. A field experiment was carried out for two consecutive seasons (2016/2017 and 2017/2018) at the demonstration farm of the Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Alsalam, El fula, Sudan. The objective was to observe the effect of selected conservation tillage practices on soil moisture content and sorghum grain yield on sandy loam soil under rain-fed conditions. The treatments consisted of five tillage practices viz: Chisel plowing, cultivator, offset disc harrowing, chisel plowing + offset disc harrowing and no-tillage (traditional) as a control. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications (RCBD). The soil moisture content (%) at three depths of 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm and 30-45 cm was measured. Sorghum grain yield (kg ha-1) was determined. The results of analysis showed that different tillage practices had no significant effect on soil moisture content at the three depths for both seasons, except at 0-15 cm depth during the first season. Whereas, no-tillage practice increased soil moisture content by 37.8 %, 35.3 %, 28.5 % and 13.3 % as compared to the chiseling, chiseling + harrowing, cultivator and harrowing, respectively. The results also indicated that sorghum grain yield was not influenced by conservation tillage practices in the first season. However, the chisel plowing and cultivator practices were significantly increased the sorghum grain yield by 28.3 % and 27.5 %, respectively, as compared to no-tillage practice during the second season.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Different tillage practices had no significant effect on soil moisture content at the three depths in both seasons, except at 0-15 cm depth in the first season.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
different tillage practicese1
Outcome
soil moisture contente1
Direction
no significant effecte1
Qualifier
except at 0-15 cm depth during the first seasone2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“different tillage practices had no significant effect on soil moisture content at the three depths for both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1227 · show in text ↑
e2

“except at 0-15 cm depth during the first season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1229–1276 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased soil moisture content by 37.8% compared with chiseling.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
no-tillage practicee1
Outcome
soil moisture contente1
Direction
increasede1
Value
37.8 %e1
Comparator
chiselinge1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“no-tillage practice increased soil moisture content by 37.8 %, 35.3 %, 28.5 % and 13.3 % as compared to the chiseling, chiseling + harrowing, cultivator and harrowing, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1467 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased soil moisture content by 35.3% compared with chiseling + harrowing.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
no-tillage practicee1
Outcome
soil moisture contente1
Direction
increasede1
Value
35.3 %e1
Comparator
chiseling + harrowinge1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“no-tillage practice increased soil moisture content by 37.8 %, 35.3 %, 28.5 % and 13.3 % as compared to the chiseling, chiseling + harrowing, cultivator and harrowing, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1467 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased soil moisture content by 28.5% compared with the cultivator.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
no-tillage practicee1
Outcome
soil moisture contente1
Direction
increasede1
Value
28.5 %e1
Comparator
cultivatore1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“no-tillage practice increased soil moisture content by 37.8 %, 35.3 %, 28.5 % and 13.3 % as compared to the chiseling, chiseling + harrowing, cultivator and harrowing, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1467 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage increased soil moisture content by 13.3% compared with harrowing.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
no-tillage practicee1
Outcome
soil moisture contente1
Direction
increasede1
Value
13.3 %e1
Comparator
harrowinge1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“no-tillage practice increased soil moisture content by 37.8 %, 35.3 %, 28.5 % and 13.3 % as compared to the chiseling, chiseling + harrowing, cultivator and harrowing, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1467 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum grain yield was not influenced by conservation tillage practices in the first season.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
conservation tillage practicese1
Outcome
sorghum grain yielde1
Direction
not influencede1
Qualifier
in the first seasone1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“sorghum grain yield was not influenced by conservation tillage practices in the first season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1501–1593 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chisel plowing significantly increased sorghum grain yield by 28.3% compared with no-tillage in the second season.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
chisel plowinge1
Outcome
sorghum grain yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Value
28.3 %e1
Qualifier
during the second seasone1
Comparator
no-tillage practicee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“the chisel plowing and cultivator practices were significantly increased the sorghum grain yield by 28.3 % and 27.5 %, respectively, as compared to no-tillage practice during the second season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1604–1796 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The cultivator practice significantly increased sorghum grain yield by 27.5% compared with no-tillage in the second season.

Taxon
SorghumSorghumt0
Treatment
cultivatore1
Outcome
sorghum grain yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Value
27.5 %e1
Qualifier
during the second seasone1
Comparator
no-tillage practicee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“the chisel plowing and cultivator practices were significantly increased the sorghum grain yield by 28.3 % and 27.5 %, respectively, as compared to no-tillage practice during the second season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1604–1796 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sorghum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–86 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ

123 papers: 102 positive, 21 negative or no effect

101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

119 papers more in this group

See all 123 papers →

tillage · quality: grain · SorghumPositive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.