Abstract
AbstractDetermining the proper rate of wheat residues incorporation into the soil under a wheat–maize double cropping system is an important issue in southern parts of Iran, where these two irrigated crops are consecutively grown. A 2-year experiment (2010–2011) was conducted to evaluate the effect of wheat residue incorporation rates (25%, 50% and 75%) and irrigation intervals (12, 16 and 20 days) on yield and growth of maize under no-tillage system compared to control without residue and under conventional tillage (CT) at the College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. The experiment was conducted as a split plot arranged in randomized complete block design with three replications. The results showed that increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%) and grains per ear (29.8%), thousand grain weight (6.9%), grain (33.8%) and biological yield (24.2) and harvest index (23.2%). Water deficit had no significant effect on soil organic matter and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. Under 12 and 20 days irrigation intervals, the highest grain yields were obtained with 12.7 and 8.6 t ha−1 in CT and 25% residue incorporation into soil, respectively. Therefore, according to the results of this 2-year study, realized incorporation of 25% wheat residue soil covering percentage is recommended for this area with limited water resources.Keywords: conventional tillageconservation tillagesoil organic mattercarbon-to-nitrogen ratio
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced maize plant height by 14.6%.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced maize leaf-area index by 12.9%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced rows by 10.1%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced grains per ear by 29.8%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%) and grains per ear (29.8%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced thousand grain weight by 6.9%.
- Treatment
- increased irrigation intervalse0
- Outcome
- thousand grain weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%) and grains per ear (29.8%), thousand grain weight (6.9%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced grain yield by 33.8%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%) and grains per ear (29.8%), thousand grain weight (6.9%), grain (33.8%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced biological yield by 24.2.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%) and grains per ear (29.8%), thousand grain weight (6.9%), grain (33.8%) and biological yield (24.2)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer irrigation intervals reduced harvest index by 23.2%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased irrigation intervals reduced the plant height (14.6%), leaf-area index (12.9%), rows (10.1%) and grains per ear (29.8%), thousand grain weight (6.9%), grain (33.8%) and biological yield (24.2) and harvest index (23.2%)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit had no significant effect on soil organic matter and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio.
- Treatment
- Water deficite0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter and carbon-to-nitrogen ratioe0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficit had no significant effect on soil organic matter and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under 12-day irrigation, conventional tillage produced the highest maize grain yield of 12.7 t ha−1.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 12.7 and 8.6 t ha−1e0
- Qualifier
- 12 and 20 days irrigation intervalse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under 12 and 20 days irrigation intervals, the highest grain yields were obtained with 12.7 and 8.6 t ha−1 in CT and 25% residue incorporation into soil, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under 20-day irrigation, 25% residue incorporation produced the highest maize grain yield of 8.6 t ha−1.
- Treatment
- 25% residue incorporation into soile0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 12.7 and 8.6 t ha−1e0
- Qualifier
- 12 and 20 days irrigation intervalse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under 12 and 20 days irrigation intervals, the highest grain yields were obtained with 12.7 and 8.6 t ha−1 in CT and 25% residue incorporation into soil, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 25% wheat residue soil covering in this water-limited area.
- Outcome
- incorporation of 25% wheat residue soil covering percentagee0
- Qualifier
- this area with limited water resourcese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“incorporation of 25% wheat residue soil covering percentage is recommended for this area with limited water resources.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 208 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →drought · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.