Abstract
2 Abstract: Field experiments were conducted for two successive years to study the response of forage corn to different methods. Tillage treatments in the study were moldboard plow + two passes of disk harrow as conventional tillage (CT), two passes of disk harrow as reduced tillage (RT), one pass of disk harrow as minimum tillage (MT) and no-tillage (NT) as direct drilling method. The statistical results of the study indicated that tillage method significantly (P = 0.05) affected dry biological yield (DBY), dry grain yield (DGY) and number of plants per hectare (NPPH), but there was no significant difference in other yield components such as number of ears per plant (NEPP), number of rows per ear (NRPE), number of grains per row (NGPR), 1000 grain weight (1000GW), plant height (PLTH) and stem diameter (STMD). The maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment, while maximum value of NGPR 1 (37.0), PLTH (178 cm) and STMD (2.0 cm) was observed in case of RT treatment. Also, maximum value of NRPE (14.7) and 1000GW (244 g) was noted in case of NT treatment. On the other hand, the minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment, while minimum value 1 1 of NEPP (0.89), PLTH (167 cm) and STMD (1.7 cm) was observed in case of MT treatment. Also, minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment. Accordingly, moldboard plow followed two passes of disk harrow was found to be more appropriate and profitable tillage method in improving growth and yield of forage corn in the arid lands.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage significantly affected dry biological yield, dry grain yield and plant density.
- Taxon
- forage cornt0
- Treatment
- tillage methode0
- Outcome
- dry biological yield (DBY), dry grain yield (DGY) and number of plants per hectare (NPPH)e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“tillage method significantly (P = 0.05) affected dry biological yield (DBY), dry grain yield (DGY) and number of plants per hectare (NPPH)”
t0“Forage Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage had no significant difference for the listed other yield components.
- Taxon
- forage cornt0
- Treatment
- tillage methode1
- Outcome
- other yield componentse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference in other yield components such as number of ears per plant (NEPP), number of rows per ear (NRPE), number of grains per row (NGPR), 1000 grain weight (1000GW), plant height (PLTH) and stem diameter (STMD).”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“tillage method significantly (P = 0.05) affected dry biological yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the maximum dry biological yield of 13.2 t ha.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the maximum dry grain yield of 4.15 1 t ha.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the maximum plant density of 39830.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the maximum ears per plant of 0.92.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“in case of MT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage gave the maximum grains per row of 37.0.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of NGPR 1 (37.0), PLTH (178 cm) and STMD (2.0 cm) was observed in case of RT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage gave the maximum plant height of 178 cm.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of NGPR 1 (37.0), PLTH (178 cm) and STMD (2.0 cm) was observed in case of RT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“in case of MT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage gave the maximum stem diameter of 2.0 cm.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of NGPR 1 (37.0), PLTH (178 cm) and STMD (2.0 cm) was observed in case of RT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“in case of MT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage gave the maximum rows per ear of 14.7.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of NRPE (14.7) and 1000GW (244 g) was noted in case of NT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage gave the maximum thousand-grain weight of 244 g.
Verbatim
e0“maximum value of NRPE (14.7) and 1000GW (244 g) was noted in case of NT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage gave the minimum dry biological yield of 7.40 t ha.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage gave the minimum dry grain yield of 2.39 t ha.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage gave the minimum plant density of 20390.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value of DBY (7.40 t ha ), DGY (2.39 t ha ) and NPPH (20390) was obtained in case of NT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“maximum value of DBY (13.2 t ha ), DGY (4.15 1 t ha ), NPPH (39830) and NEPP (0.92) was obtained in case of CT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage gave the minimum plant height of 167 cm.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value 1 1 of NEPP (0.89), PLTH (167 cm) and STMD (1.7 cm) was observed in case of MT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“in case of RT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage gave the minimum stem diameter of 1.7 cm.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value 1 1 of NEPP (0.89), PLTH (167 cm) and STMD (1.7 cm) was observed in case of MT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“in case of RT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the minimum rows per ear of 13.7.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“maximum value of NRPE (14.7) and 1000GW (244 g) was noted in case of NT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the minimum grains per row of 35.2.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“in case of RT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave the minimum thousand-grain weight of 235 g.
Verbatim
e0“minimum value of NRPE (13.7), NGPR (35.2) and 1000GW (235 g) was noted in case of CT treatment”
t0“Forage Corn”
e1“maximum value of NRPE (14.7) and 1000GW (244 g) was noted in case of NT treatment”
The same questions in other 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.