Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Direct-seeding mulch cropping retained higher soil water potential than reduced tillage at three depths.

A claim from Short-Term Effects of Conversion from Reduced Tillage to Direct-Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping Systems · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Direct-seeding mulch cropping retained higher soil water potential than reduced tillage at three depths.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse7
Treatment
DMCe0
Outcome
soil water potential retentione0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
at 10, 30, and 60 cm soil depthe0
Comparator
RTe0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValue

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We found higher soil water potential retention in DMC than in RT at 10, 30, and 60 cm soil depth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 547–644
e7

“Two fields were cropped with maize (Zea mays L.) and one with sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 423–513

Title

Short-Term Effects of Conversion from Reduced Tillage to Direct-Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping Systems

Rémy Kulagowski; Anaïs Chailleux Journal of Crop Improvement 2015. doi:10.1080/15427528.2015.1070390

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-108ff7dcce7e8f49fcd37d0148b448a461a750591e103a584a1cff304b312d2c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

cultivation system · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this claim · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 10 papers →

mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

116 papers: 108 positive, 8 negative or no effect

107 papers in the same direction as this claim · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect
  4. negative
  5. no effect
  6. no effect
  7. no effect
  8. negative

107 papers more in this group

See all 116 papers →

transplanting · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
See all 6 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.