Paper · 2015 · Australian Journal of Crop Science

Effects of planting systems and lime doses on corn-forage intercropping during off-season.

Renan Rodrigues Braga; José Barbosa dos Santos; J.P. Cury; et al.

7
claims
11
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

This research was conducted to evaluate the effects of the planting systems and lime dosages on the corn and forage (Urochloa brizantha) yield, the weed control system and soil seed bank of the corn-forage intercropping system. The experiment was conducted under field conditions in a randomized complete block design, with four replications. We adopted a split plot 2×4 arrangement, consisting of a combination of two planting systems (tillage and no-tillage) as plots with four lime doses (0, 0.83, 1.25 and 2.50 t ha 1 ) as the subplot. Maximum plant height, stem diameter, dry matter and corn yield were recorded in the no-tillage system, with 311% higher productivity in the no-tillage system compared with the conventional system, regardless of the limestone application. The high production is mainly due to the ability of the no-tillage to retain and provide the corn plants with water. The results showed that liming influenced only the corn grown in the conventional system. Weed infestation was higher in the non-tillage system whereas, the tillage system enabled greater diversity and quantity of viable seeds in the soil. The no-tillage is, therefore, an excellent alternative to the intercropping corn-forage production during the late summer cultivation.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tillage gave maximum corn height, stem diameter, and dry matter.

Treatment
no-tillage systeme0
Outcome
plant height, stem diameter, dry mattere0
Direction
Maximume0
Comparator
conventional systeme1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum plant height, stem diameter, dry matter and corn yield were recorded in the no-tillage system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 540–641 · show in text ↑
e1

“compared with the conventional system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 698–735 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tillage increased corn productivity 311% compared with conventional tillage, regardless of limestone.

Treatment
no-tillage systeme0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
highere0
Value
311%e0
Qualifier
regardless of the limestone applicatione0
Comparator
conventional systeme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“311% higher productivity in the no-tillage system compared with the conventional system, regardless of the limestone application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–776 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 592–602 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attribute high production under no tillage to water retention and provision for corn.

Treatment
no-tillagee0
Outcome
high productione0
Qualifier
retain and provide the corn plants with watere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The high production is mainly due to the ability of the no-tillage to retain and provide the corn plants with water”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–893 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming influenced only corn grown in the conventional system.

Treatment
liminge0
Outcome
corn grown in the conventional systeme0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“liming influenced only the corn grown in the conventional system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 919–983 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed infestation was higher with no tillage.

Treatment
non-tillage systeme0
Interactor
Weede0weed
Outcome
Weed infestatione0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weed infestation was higher in the non-tillage system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 985–1038 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn-forage intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–226 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage increased diversity and quantity of viable soil seeds.

Treatment
tillage systeme0
Outcome
diversity and quantity of viable seeds in the soile0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the tillage system enabled greater diversity and quantity of viable seeds in the soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1048–1133 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn-forage intercropping system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–226 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend no tillage for corn forage intercropping in late summer.

Outcome
no-tillage is, therefore, an excellent alternative to the intercropping corn-forage production during the late summer cultivatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The no-tillage is, therefore, an excellent alternative to the intercropping corn-forage production during the late summer cultivation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1135–1268 · show in text ↑

tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

283 papers: 196 positive, 87 negative or no effect

195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

279 papers more in this group

See all 283 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. 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.