Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at Toshka area in Aswan government, South Egypt to study the effect of tillage and gypsum practices on maize production for two seasons 2020 and 2021. The treatments were deep tillage without gypsum (DT), deep tillage with gypsum (DT+G), surface tillage without gypsum (ST) and surface tillage with gypsum (ST+G). The yield parameters were determined as well as maize water relations. The tillage treatments affect maize yield and its components. The highest maize straw or grain production was realized at surface tillage with gypsum application for both seasons, followed by deep tillage without gypsum, then deep tillage with gypsum, and lasted by surface tillage without gypsum. The highest value of grain yield (5.43ton ha-1) was recorded at ST+G treatment in the 1st season. The lowest value of grain yield (4.19ton ha-1) was recorded at ST treatment in the 1stseason. The water consumptive use (CU) of maize was decreased by agricultural practices (deep tillage and gypsum application) during both growing seasons. The highest value of crop water productivity, CWP, (0.93 kg/ m3 water) was recorded at deep tillage with gypsum applied (DT+G) in the 1st season. The lowest value of CWP (0.69 kg / m3 water) was recorded at surface tillage without gypsum application (ST) in the 1st season. The positive effect of tillage treatments and gypsum application on soil moisture constants (SP, FC, WP, and AW) could be arranged in the descending order of DT+G > ST+G >DT >ST. It could be concluded that tillage practices and gypsum application enhanced soil properties whether physical or chemical and increased soil fertility as well as realized high maize production with minimum irrigation water application. It was noticed that the best treatment was deep tillage with gypsum application.
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
Surface tillage with gypsum gave the highest maize straw production across both seasons.
- Treatment
- surface tillage with gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- maize straw or grain productione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- both seasonse0
- Comparator
- surface tillage without gypsume0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest maize straw or grain production was realized at surface tillage with gypsum application for both seasons, followed by deep tillage without gypsum, then deep tillage with gypsum, and lasted by surface tillage without gypsum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface tillage with gypsum gave the highest maize grain production across both seasons.
- Treatment
- surface tillage with gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- grain productione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- both seasonse0
- Comparator
- surface tillage without gypsume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest maize straw or grain production was realized at surface tillage with gypsum application for both seasons, followed by deep tillage without gypsum, then deep tillage with gypsum, and lasted by surface tillage without gypsum.”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest first-season grain yield was 5.43ton ha-1 under ST+G.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest value of grain yield (5.43ton ha-1) was recorded at ST+G treatment in the 1st season.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest first-season grain yield was 4.19ton ha-1 under ST.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest value of grain yield (4.19ton ha-1) was recorded at ST treatment in the 1stseason.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage and gypsum application decreased maize water consumptive use in both seasons.
- Treatment
- deep tillage and gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- water consumptive use (CU)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- both growing seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The water consumptive use (CU) of maize was decreased by agricultural practices (deep tillage and gypsum application) during both growing seasons.”
Claim · model-written summary
DT+G produced the highest first-season crop water productivity, 0.93 kg/ m3 water.
- Treatment
- deep tillage with gypsum applied (DT+G)e0
- Outcome
- crop water productivitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 0.93 kg/ m3 watere0
- Qualifier
- 1st seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest value of crop water productivity, CWP, (0.93 kg/ m3 water) was recorded at deep tillage with gypsum applied (DT+G) in the 1st season.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST produced the lowest first-season crop water productivity, 0.69 kg / m3 water.
- Treatment
- surface tillage without gypsum application (ST)e0
- Outcome
- CWPe0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 0.69 kg / m3 watere0
- Qualifier
- 1st seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest value of CWP (0.69 kg / m3 water) was recorded at surface tillage without gypsum application (ST) in the 1st season.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture constants ranked DT+G above ST+G, DT, and ST.
- Treatment
- tillage treatments and gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- soil moisture constants (SP, FC, WP, and AW)e0
- Direction
- descendinge0
- Comparator
- STe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The positive effect of tillage treatments and gypsum application on soil moisture constants (SP, FC, WP, and AW) could be arranged in the descending order of DT+G > ST+G >DT >ST.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and gypsum improved soil physical and chemical properties and fertility.
- Treatment
- tillage practices and gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- soil properties whether physical or chemical and increased soil fertilitye0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“tillage practices and gypsum application enhanced soil properties whether physical or chemical and increased soil fertility”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that tillage and gypsum increased maize production with minimum irrigation water.
- Treatment
- tillage practices and gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- maize productione0
- Direction
- highe0
- Qualifier
- minimum irrigation water applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tillage practices and gypsum application enhanced soil properties whether physical or chemical and increased soil fertility as well as realized high maize production with minimum irrigation water application.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identified deep tillage with gypsum as the best treatment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was noticed that the best treatment was deep tillage with gypsum application.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
lime · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 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 →lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
215 papers more in this group
See all 219 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →lime · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.