Abstract
A field experiment was conducted for two years on sandy loam soil for maize (Zea mays L.) cultivation on beds. An index called least limiting water range (LLWR) was computed to compare hydrophysical characteristics of soil under bed planted maize with those under conventionally flat planted maize. Among all four parameters of LLWR, soil water content at field capacity (fc) and wilting point (q pwp ) did not change much, whereas soil water content at 10% aeration porosity (q ap ) reduced significantly and soil water content at 2MPa soil strength (q 2MPa ) increased appreciably with increase in bulk density (BD). It was further observed that available water retention capacity (AWRC) did not vary appreciably with BD, whereas LLWR decreased with increase in BD, which indicated that LLWR was a true indicator of soil structural condition. Again, lower water stress period was obtained under bed as compared to conventional planting system. Field saturated hydraulic conductivity at 10 cm soil depth was 3 times of its value of 0.36 cm/hr under conventional planting. Root length density was also more in upper 45 cm in beds due to porous soil environment. These results thus indicated that bed-planting system is superior to conventional planting as it had wider LLWR indicating better water availability and improved soil structural conditions which led to enhanced root growth, and higher maize yield. The above study also confirmed that LLWR could be used as a tool for assessing the suitability of a given soil management practices in improving soil productivity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Field capacity and wilting point soil water contents changed little with bulk density.
- Outcome
- soil water content at field capacity (fc) and wilting point (q pwp )e0
- Direction
- did not change muche0
- Setting
- bulk density (BD)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Among all four parameters of LLWR, soil water content at field capacity (fc) and wilting point (q pwp ) did not change much, whereas soil water content at 10% aeration porosity (q ap ) reduced significantly and soil water content at 2MPa soil strength (q 2MPa ) increased appreciably with increase in bulk density (BD).”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water content at 10% aeration porosity fell significantly as bulk density rose.
- Outcome
- soil water content at 10% aeration porosity (q ap )e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- bulk density (BD)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“soil water content at 10% aeration porosity (q ap ) reduced significantly and soil water content at 2MPa soil strength (q 2MPa ) increased appreciably with increase in bulk density (BD)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water content at 2 MPa soil strength increased with bulk density.
- Outcome
- soil water content at 2MPa soil strength (q 2MPa )e0
- Direction
- increased appreciablye0
- Setting
- bulk density (BD)e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“soil water content at 10% aeration porosity (q ap ) reduced significantly and soil water content at 2MPa soil strength (q 2MPa ) increased appreciably with increase in bulk density (BD)”
Claim · model-written summary
Available water retention capacity varied little with bulk density.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“available water retention capacity (AWRC) did not vary appreciably with BD, whereas LLWR decreased with increase in BD”
Claim · model-written summary
Least limiting water range decreased as bulk density increased.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“available water retention capacity (AWRC) did not vary appreciably with BD, whereas LLWR decreased with increase in BD”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting reduced the water stress period relative to conventional planting.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“lower water stress period was obtained under bed as compared to conventional planting system”
Claim · model-written summary
Field saturated hydraulic conductivity at 10 cm under beds was three times the conventional planting value.
- Outcome
- Field saturated hydraulic conductivitye0
- Direction
- 3 timese0
- Value
- 3 timese0
- Qualifier
- 0.36 cm/hre0
- Comparator
- conventional plantinge0
Not reportedTaxonOrgan / stageTreatment
Verbatim
e0“Field saturated hydraulic conductivity at 10 cm soil depth was 3 times of its value of 0.36 cm/hr under conventional planting.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting increased root length density in the upper 45 cm.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Root length density was also more in upper 45 cm in beds due to porous soil environment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting enhanced maize yield compared with conventional planting.
- Treatment
- bed-planting systeme0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional plantinge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bed-planting system is superior to conventional planting as it had wider LLWR indicating better water availability and improved soil structural conditions which led to enhanced root growth, and higher maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Least limiting water range was useful for assessing soil management practices.
- Outcome
- assessing the suitability of a given soil management practicese0
- Qualifier
- improving soil productivitye0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“LLWR could be used as a tool for assessing the suitability of a given soil management practices in improving soil productivity.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 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.