Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Conventional tillage gave the maximum number of grains per cob (381) compared with zero tillage.

A claim from INFLUENCE OF FOLIAR APPLIED POTASSIUM AND DEFICIT IRRIGATION UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTIVITY OF HYBRIDMAIZE · 2023

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional tillage gave the maximum number of grains per cob (381) compared with zero tillage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
conventional tillage systeme1
Outcome
grains per cobe1
Direction
maximume1
Value
381e1
Comparator
zero tillagee1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

“growth and yield of maize hybrid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–226
e1

“maximum grains per cob (381), 1000-grains weight (281.00 g), grain yield (7.82 t ha-1) and biological yield (14.78 t ha-1) were observed in conventional tillage system as compared to zero tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–445

Title

INFLUENCE OF FOLIAR APPLIED POTASSIUM AND DEFICIT IRRIGATION UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON PRODUCTIVITY OF HYBRIDMAIZE

M. Maqsood Pakistan Journal of Science 2023. doi:10.57041/pjs.v69i3.564

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-95614d92ad4561ba6ebb8da45a76397e60489146956840de5000ecab51373711 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this claim · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
    No-till significantly increased maize nitrogen harvest index under both nitrogen conditions.

    Conversion to No-Till Improves Maize Nitrogen Use Efficiency in a Continuous Cover Cropping System · 2016

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. no effect
    Cover-crop no-tillage and standard no-tillage gave similar corn yields.

    Potential Long‐Term Benefits of No‐Tillage and Organic Cropping Systems for Grain Production and Soil Improvement · 2007 · compared with NT

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    No-till produced less corn grain than plow tillage.

    Tillage and Rotation Interactions for Corn and Soybean Grain Yield as Affected by Precipitation and Air Temperature · 2004 · compared with plow

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Tillage had no grain-yield effect in manure or compost plots in three of four years.

    Composted and Noncomposted Manure Application to Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems: Corn Yield and Nitrogen Uptake · 1999

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    No-tillage corn grain yield was 5% lower than under conventional tillage.

    Corn and Soybean Response to Rotation Sequence, Row Spacing, and Tillage System · 2003 · compared with conventional tillage system

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Continuous no-till corn on Chalmers soil was 2% wetter at harvest than plowed corn.

    Long‐Term Tillage and Rotation Effects on Corn Growth and Yield on High and Low Organic Matter, Poorly Drained Soils · 1988 · compared with plowing

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    No-tillage without red clover reduced corn grain yield by 13% versus conventional tillage over three years.

    Red Clover and Tillage Influence on Soil Temperature, Water Content, and Corn Emergence · 1999 · compared with conventional tillage treatment

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    A significant tillage x year interaction indicated equal continuous corn yields for CT and NT in the first 2 years.

    Corn Production as Affected by Tillage System and Starter Fertilizer · 2002 · compared with NT

    Opposite direction

1,090 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 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.