Abstract
Alleviating the hydrothermal limitations to growth, clear film fully mulched ridge–furrow (FMRF) cropping significantly improves maize (Zea mays L.) grain yield on the Loess Plateau of China. Major concerns for FMRF cropping are the stability of maize productivity and whether the system is detrimental to the soil organic C (SOC) balance under changed hydrothermal conditions. We investigated the effects of maize production with FMRF and its effect on SOC concentration for five consecutive years from 2008 to 2012. Three treatments were imposed: no mulch (narrow ridges with the crop sown beside the ridges), half mulch (the same as no mulch, except the narrow ridges were mulched), and full mulch (i.e., FMRF; alternate narrow and wide ridges, all mulched, with maize in furrows). The 5-yr average of the grain yield was 3.8 Mg ha−1 under no mulch. Half and full mulch increased the grain yield by 68 and 102%, respectively, relative to no mulch. Root biomass was 69 and 104% greater under half and full mulch, respectively, than no mulch. The maize yield and biomass differed among years depending on the growing-season precipitation and its distribution, but the increased yield and biomass from mulching was consistent in all years. The mulch stimulated SOC mineralization and enzymatic activity but had no effect on light (density <1.8 g cm–3) and total SOC concentrations compared with no mulch. We conclude that increased SOC mineralization under FMRF was offset by increased SOC addition; FMRF cropping increased maize productivity without detriment to the SOC balance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
The five-year mean maize grain yield without mulch was 3.8 Mg ha−1.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 5-yr average of the grain yield was 3.8 Mg ha−1 under no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half mulch increased maize grain yield by 68% relative to no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Half and full mulch increased the grain yield by 68 and 102%, respectively, relative to no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Full mulch increased maize grain yield by 102% relative to no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Half and full mulch increased the grain yield by 68 and 102%, respectively, relative to no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root biomass was 69% greater under half mulch than no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root biomass was 69 and 104% greater under half and full mulch, respectively, than no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root biomass was 104% greater under full mulch than no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root biomass was 69 and 104% greater under half and full mulch, respectively, than no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield and biomass differed across years with growing-season precipitation and its distribution.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maize yield and biomass differed among years depending on the growing-season precipitation and its distribution”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching increased maize yield and biomass consistently in all years.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the increased yield and biomass from mulching was consistent in all years.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch stimulated soil organic carbon mineralization.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mulch stimulated SOC mineralization and enzymatic activity but had no effect on light (density <1.8 g cm–3) and total SOC concentrations compared with no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch stimulated soil enzymatic activity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mulch stimulated SOC mineralization and enzymatic activity but had no effect on light (density <1.8 g cm–3) and total SOC concentrations compared with no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulch had no effect on light soil organic carbon concentration compared with no mulch.
- Treatment
- mulche0
- Outcome
- light (density <1.8 g cm–3) and total SOC concentrationse0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- no mulche0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mulch stimulated SOC mineralization and enzymatic activity but had no effect on light (density <1.8 g cm–3) and total SOC concentrations compared with no mulch.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased soil organic carbon mineralization under full mulch was offset by increased carbon addition.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased SOC mineralization under FMRF was offset by increased SOC addition”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Full mulch increased maize productivity without detriment to soil organic carbon balance.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“FMRF cropping increased maize productivity without detriment to the SOC balance.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →mulching · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 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.