Abstract
Rainfall variability, often accompanied by high temperatures and soil drought, is a common problem of grain crop production by resource-poor farmers in Nsukka Agroecological Zone of Nigeria. The effects of no-till (NT), conventional tillage (CT), bare-fallow (B) and mulch (M) (combinations of which gave NTB, NTM, CTB and CTM) on moisture status of a sandy loam sole-cropped to sorghum and soybean at Nsukka were evaluated during the 2006 and 2007 growing seasons. Sampling was carried out from 0–10, 10–20, 20–30 and 30–50 cm soil layers at 10±1-day intervals. Rainfall was more favourable in the first season than in the second. The effects of the tillage–mulch treatments were generally less distinct under sorghum than soybean. The profile moisture storage followed the order, NTM ≤ CTB ≤ CTM ≤ NTB under sorghum and NTB ≤ CTB ≤ NTM ≤ CTM under soybean. Moisture content tended to be higher with CT within the 0–20 cm layers, but with NT in the 30–50 cm soil layer under soybean. Higher moisture status due to mulch was evident under both crops. The soybean field maintained a higher soil moisture status than the sorghum field during the second season. The differing effects of the crops should be considered in years of erratic rainfall, especially when the next crop can benefit from the residual soil moisture.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and mulch effects on moisture were less distinct under sorghum than soybean.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effects of the tillage–mulch treatments were generally less distinct under sorghum than soybean.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under sorghum, profile moisture storage ranked NTM ≤ CTB ≤ CTM ≤ NTB.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The profile moisture storage followed the order, NTM ≤ CTB ≤ CTM ≤ NTB under sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Under soybean, profile moisture storage ranked NTB ≤ CTB ≤ NTM ≤ CTM.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Outcome
- NTB ≤ CTB ≤ NTM ≤ CTMe0
- Qualifier
- NTB ≤ CTB ≤ NTM ≤ CTMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTB ≤ CTB ≤ NTM ≤ CTM under soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
In soybean, conventional tillage tended to increase topsoil moisture.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Organ / stage
- 0–20 cm layerse0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- Moisture contente0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Moisture content tended to be higher with CT within the 0–20 cm layers”
e1“sole-cropped to sorghum and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
In soybean, no-till tended to increase moisture at 30–50 cm.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- 30–50 cm soil layere0
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but with NT in the 30–50 cm soil layer under soybean.”
e1“Moisture content tended to be higher with CT within the 0–20 cm layers”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch increased moisture status under sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher moisture status due to mulch was evident under both crops.”
e1“sole-cropped to sorghum and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch increased moisture status under soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- mulche0
- Outcome
- moisture statuse0
- Direction
- Highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher moisture status due to mulch was evident under both crops.”
e1“sole-cropped to sorghum and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The soybean field maintained higher soil moisture than the sorghum field in the second season.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- soil moisture statuse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- during the second seasone0
- Comparator
- sorghum fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The soybean field maintained a higher soil moisture status than the sorghum field during the second season.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend considering crop effects when erratic rainfall makes residual moisture useful to the next crop.
- Taxon
- sorghum and soybeanGlycine max
Sorghume1 - Outcome
- differing effects of the crops should be considerede0
- Qualifier
- years of erratic rainfalle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The differing effects of the crops should be considered in years of erratic rainfall, especially when the next crop can benefit from the residual soil moisture.”
e1“sorghum and soybean at Nsukka”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: grain · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →mulching · soil: physics · SorghumResults agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →mulching · soil: physics · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
12 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.