Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Roller-crimped no-till mulches saved weed management and seedbed preparation labor.

A claim from Weeds, nitrogen, and yield: Measuring the effectiveness of an organic no-till system · 2015

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Roller-crimped no-till mulches saved weed management and seedbed preparation labor.

Treatment
Roller-crimped NT mulchese0
Outcome
weed management and seedbed preparation labore0
Direction
savede0

Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0

“Roller-crimped NT mulches provided adequate early-season weed suppression in both years and saved considerable weed management and seedbed preparation labor.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1399–1556

Title

Weeds, nitrogen, and yield: Measuring the effectiveness of an organic no-till system

David Charles Robb TigerPrints (Clemson University) 2015

Other claims from this paper (14)

Record rev-a7e6b450efcd339294d6bd45eb78b9af5519e07ad4bc85f14ed58b94fa8e7a8d · schema claims-v0.9 · position 14 in the model’s answer

tillage · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 7 positive, 4 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Weed cover was 1.6 to 12.5 times higher under no-till than incorporation in 2000.

    Evaluation of Conservation Tillage and Cover Crop Systems for Organic Processing Tomato Production · 2004 · compared with IP treatments

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

  2. no effect
    In 1997, weed cover did not differ significantly between the no-till cover crop treatments and the fallow controls in processing tomato.

    Use of Cover Crop Mulches in a No-till Furrow-irrigated Processing Tomato Production System · 2001 · compared with fallow controls

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    No till increased weed biomass relative to conventional tillage.

    Legume Cover Crop Alleviates the Negative Impact of No-Till on Tomato Productivity in a Mediterranean Organic Cropping System · 2023 · compared with CT

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Tillage did not affect weed seed banks in any year.

    A Comparison of Threshold Strategies in Tomatoes and Soybean · 2008

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Weed densities were lower in the subsurface drip–conservation till–no herbicide treatment than in any furrow irrigation treatment.

    Weed Control, Yield, and Quality of Processing Tomato Production under Different Irrigation, Tillage, and Herbicide Systems · 2006 · compared with any of the furrow irrigation treatments

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Roller-crimped no-till mulch saved considerable weed management and seedbed preparation labor.

    Weeds, nitrogen and yield: measuring the effectiveness of an organic cover cropped vegetable no-till system · 2018

    Same direction

  7. positive
    Deep tillage reduced weed density by 11% at 20 days relative to reduced tillage.

    Effect of tillage and weed control methods on weeds density and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) productivity. · 2015 · compared with reduced tillage

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Combined raised beds, black mulch and two-stem training gave weed density of 142.00/m2.

    Integration of raised beds, mulching and stem training for weed management in tomato under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh · 2022

    Same direction

2 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

mulching · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

55 papers: 49 positive, 6 negative or no effect

48 papers in the same direction as this claim · 2 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Organic mulches controlled weeds less efficiently than metribuzin.

    The Effect of Organic Mulches and Metribuzin on Weed Control and Yield of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) · 2018 · compared with metribuzin

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    All mulch treatments controlled weeds less efficiently than metribuzin.

    The effect of non-living organic mulches and metribuzin on weed control and compare the performance of tomato yield by using Gompertz and logistic equations · 2018 · compared with metribuzin

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    The VIF mulch was not effective in increasing weed control over LDPE mulch.

    Brassicaceae Cover-Crop Effects on Weed Management in Plasticulture Tomato · 2014 · compared with LDPE mulch

    No difference from an alternative

  4. no effect
    Solarization alone did not outperform farmer practice for weed growth.

    Weed control in squash and tomato fields by soil solarization in the Jordan Valley · 1991 · compared with farmer‐practice

    No difference from an alternative

  5. no effect
    VIF mulch did not improve weed control over LDPE.

    Allyl Isothiocyanate as a Methyl Bromide Alternative for Weed Management in Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato · 2012 · compared with LDPE mulch

    No difference from an alternative

  6. no effect
    VIF mulch was no more effective than LDPE mulch at increasing weed control or improving marketable yield of tomato in either year.

    Comparison of the Herbicidal Activity of Phenyl Isothiocyanate with Methyl Bromide in Polyethylene-Mulched Tomato · 2012 · compared with LDPE mulch

    No difference from an alternative

  7. positive
    Mulching materials controlled most weed species.

    Effect of Biodegradable Mulch Materials on Weed Control in Processing Tomatoes · 2010

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Cover-crop mulch suppressed weeds as well as herbicide plots.

    A Comparison of Four Processing Tomato Production Systems Differing in Cover Crop and Chemical Inputs · 1996 · compared with herbicide plots

    Same direction

46 papers more in this group

See all 55 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.