Abstract
Full plastic mulching (FPM) agriculture (plasticulture) demonstrates enormous yield-increasing potential in east African Plateau (EAP), yet its environmental effect is much questioned. Here, we examined the effectiveness of reducing plastic mulching in maize fields (2023–2024). Relative to non-mulching (CK), FPM significantly improved soil hydrothermal status, harvesting greater yield by 28.6–73.6 % ( p < 0.05). Yet, it caused increasing plastic residues, evidently damaging soil structure & microbial activities, and generating 13.2 % higher emission of greenhouse gas (GHG). Strategically, half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation (mulching on or embedding in soil) significantly can reduce evapotranspiration loss by 9.4 %, and improve water use efficiency (70.8 %), soil organic carbon (4.4 %) and microbial activities relative to CK, respectively. Critically, it harvested considerable economic benefits exceeding those under FPM ( p < 0.05), while lowering GHG emission intensity, and promoting recovery rate of plastic film (up to 95.1 %), relative to FPM. Therefore, weakening plasticulture can improve crop productivity while enhancing environmental benefits in EAP.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulching increased maize grain yield by 28.6–73.6 % relative to non-mulching (p < 0.05) in the east African Plateau.
- Treatment
- FPMe1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 28.6–73.6 %e1
- Comparator
- non-mulching (CK)e1
- Setting
- east African Plateaut1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Full plastic mulching (FPM)”
t0“maize”
t1“east African Plateau”
e1“Relative to non-mulching (CK), FPM significantly improved soil hydrothermal status, harvesting greater yield by 28.6–73.6 % ( p < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulching significantly improved soil hydrothermal status in maize fields relative to non-mulching.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e1“Relative to non-mulching (CK), FPM significantly improved soil hydrothermal status”
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulching caused increasing plastic residues in maize fields.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Full plastic mulching (FPM)”
t0“maize”
e1“it caused increasing plastic residues”
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulching evidently damaged soil structure and microbial activities.
- Treatment
- Full plastic mulching (FPM)e0
- Outcome
- soil structure & microbial activitiese1
- Direction
- damaginge1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Full plastic mulching (FPM)”
t0“maize”
e1“evidently damaging soil structure & microbial activities”
Claim · model-written summary
Full plastic mulching generated 13.2 % higher greenhouse gas emission.
- Treatment
- Full plastic mulching (FPM)e0
- Outcome
- emission of greenhouse gas (GHG)e1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 13.2 %e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Full plastic mulching (FPM)”
t0“maize”
e1“generating 13.2 % higher emission of greenhouse gas (GHG)”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation significantly reduced evapotranspiration loss by 9.4 % relative to non-mulching.
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration losse1
- Direction
- reducee1
- Value
- 9.4 %e1
- Comparator
- CKe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“significantly can reduce evapotranspiration loss by 9.4 %”
e2“relative to CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation improved water use efficiency by 70.8 % relative to non-mulching.
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- improvee1
- Value
- 70.8 %e1
- Comparator
- CKe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“improve water use efficiency (70.8 %)”
e2“relative to CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation increased soil organic carbon by 4.4 % relative to non-mulching.
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbone1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- 4.4 %e1
- Comparator
- CKe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“soil organic carbon (4.4 %)”
e2“relative to CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation improved microbial activities relative to non-mulching.
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- microbial activitiese1
- Direction
- improvee1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“improve water use efficiency (70.8 %), soil organic carbon (4.4 %) and microbial activities relative to CK”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation harvested economic benefits exceeding those under full plastic mulching (p < 0.05).
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- economic benefitse1
- Direction
- exceedinge1
- Comparator
- FPMe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“it harvested considerable economic benefits exceeding those under FPM ( p < 0.05)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation lowered greenhouse gas emission intensity relative to full plastic mulching.
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- GHG emission intensitye1
- Direction
- loweringe1
- Comparator
- FPMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“while lowering GHG emission intensity”
e2“relative to FPM”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation promoted the recovery rate of plastic film, up to 95.1 %, relative to full plastic mulching.
- Treatment
- half plastic mulching with half straw incorporatione0
- Outcome
- recovery rate of plastic filme1
- Direction
- promotinge1
- Value
- up to 95.1 %e1
- Comparator
- FPMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“half plastic mulching with half straw incorporation”
e1“promoting recovery rate of plastic film (up to 95.1 %)”
e2“relative to FPM”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 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 →mulching · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →organic · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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 →mulching · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 97 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
108 papers more in this group
See all 112 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 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
- negative
- no effect
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →8 of 9 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.