Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage reduced water intake compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillage practicee4
- Outcome
- water intakee7
- Direction
- reducede7
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee5
Zea maysNot reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize (Zea mays)”
e4“zero tillage practice resulted in lower maize grain yield”
e5“compared to conventional tillage”
e7“reduced water intake”
Title
Paramu Mafongoya; Obert Jiri; Mutondwa Phophi Sustainable Agriculture Research 2015. doi:10.5539/sar.v5n1p10
Other claims from this paper (9)
- Intervention effect Conventional tillage increased maize grain yield over zero tillage by 17.8% at Msekera in 2000/2001.
- Intervention effect Conventional tillage increased maize grain yield over zero tillage by 28.2% at Msekera in 2001/2002.
- Intervention effect Conventional tillage increased maize grain yield over zero tillage by 66.3% at Chadiza in 2000/2001.
- Intervention effect Conventional tillage increased maize grain yield over zero tillage by 327.4% at Chadiza in 2001/2002.
- Intervention effect Zero tillage gave lower maize grain yield than conventional tillage.
- Intervention effect Zero tillage gave higher bulk density than conventional tillage.
- Intervention effect Zero tillage gave higher weed infestation than conventional tillage.
- Intervention effect Zero tillage gave high labour demand during weeding compared with conventional tillage.
- Intervention effect Sesbania planted fallows gave greater maize yields than natural fallow and unfertilized maize monoculture.