Abstract
Maize production in semi-arid areas is faced with numerous daunting challenges that include weeds, low rainfall and excessive infield water loss through runoff. This compounded to declining grain yield. An experiment was done at Domboshava Training Centre, Zimbabwe to determine effects of two tillage methods and mulching (basin planting + grass mulch and conventional + grass mulch) on Zea mays (maize) height, yield and weeds density. The experiment was a 2 × 1 factorial laid in a randomised complete block design with three replicates. Mulch cover was done on each of the tillage method at a rate of 5 t/ha. The blocking factor was fertility gradient. Data on plant height, weed density and grain yield was collected. The data was analysed for One Way Analysis of Variance at p < 0.05 to determine the effect of tillage on plant height, weed density and yield. Least Square Difference at 5% level was used to separate means. There was a statistical significant effect (p<0.05) of tillage method and mulch on plant height, weed density and grain yield. Conventional tillage + mulch and basin planting + mulch were statistically insignificant (p < 0.05) on weed density and grain yield. The results showed that conventional tillage + grass mulch had lowest weed density, vigorous plant height and highest yield whereas planting basin had the highest weed density, shortest plants. It is therefore recommended that farmers in dry areas would need to mulch their fields for an improved maize yield.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and mulch had a significant effect on plant height, weed density and grain yield.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was a statistical significant effect (p<0.05) of tillage method and mulch on plant height, weed density and grain yield”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage with mulch had the lowest weed density.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional tillage + grass mulch had lowest weed density”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage with mulch produced vigorous plant height.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional tillage + grass mulch had lowest weed density, vigorous plant height”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage with mulch had the highest yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional tillage + grass mulch had lowest weed density, vigorous plant height and highest yield”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting basins had the highest weed density.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“planting basin had the highest weed density”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting basins had the shortest plants.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“planting basin had the highest weed density, shortest plants”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend mulching in dry areas to improve maize yield.
- Outcome
- mulch their fields for an improved maize yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“farmers in dry areas would need to mulch their fields for an improved maize yield”
t0“Zea mays (maize)”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →tillage · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
107 papers more in this group
See all 111 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
- negative
- negative
- no effect
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 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.