Abstract
One of the most important stress factors in maize (Zea mays L.) fields is weed competition, which reduces the crop yield. Weeds chiefly interfere with maize and establish considerable competition for light, water and nutrients. To avoid these harmful effects, there are different agronomic measures and factors among which, the most relevant are the interactions between crop and weed, weed management practices and type of germplasm. This study attempts to evaluate maize germplasm for tolerance to weed competition in order to achieve competitive ability and suitability for farming. Ten genotypes of maize, classified into two groups, i.e. improved populations and traditional cultivars, were grown under four types of weed management practices (mechanical harrowing control, chemical control, combination of harrowing and chemical control and untreated control as check) for three years (from 2009 to 2011) in Zaragoza (Spain). We found that the effect of weed management practices was not significantly different, whereas the genotype effect was highly significant, with genotype EZS34 (mean yield of 7.7 Mg ha-1) showing the highest yield. Other traits, such as earliness, displayed a good behaviour under weed competition. On the other hand, harrowing management proved to be the most effective method of weed control although it did not show a significant response. The best results are associated with some maize genotypes that have a specific adaptation to local conditions, according to their genetic background.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Weed management practices did not differ significantly in their effects.
- Treatment
- weed management practicese0
- Outcome
- effect of weed management practicese0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effect of weed management practices was not significantly different”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) fields”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype had a highly significant effect on maize performance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“genotype effect was highly significant”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) fields”
Claim · model-written summary
EZS34 had the highest mean yield, 7.7 Mg ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“genotype EZS34 (mean yield of 7.7 Mg ha-1) showing the highest yield”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) fields”
Claim · model-written summary
Earliness performed well under weed competition.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“earliness, displayed a good behaviour under weed competition”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) fields”
Claim · model-written summary
Harrowing was the most effective weed control method, without a significant response.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“harrowing management proved to be the most effective method of weed control although it did not show a significant response”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.) fields”
Claim · model-written summary
The best results were associated with maize genotypes adapted to local conditions.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best results are associated with some maize genotypes that have a specific adaptation to local conditions”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.