Abstract
Weeds are the most serious threat to crop production in organic farming systems. Information on the spatial distribution of weeds is important for effective weed management. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the ground cover of the main crops (soybean and maize) and cover crop on the spatial distribution of weeds for two row sections, ‘within the row (IR)’ and ‘between the rows (BR)’. The cover crop was interseeded in BR 3 – 4 weeks after sowing the main crops in two years, and weed density and vegetation cover ratio (VCR, an index of ground cover) of the main crops and cover crop were measured. There was a significant difference in the spatial distribution of weeds between the two main crops. In IR, weed density was higher in maize than in soybean, while in BR, it was higher in soybean. This means that weed suppression in IR was more important for maize, while the suppression in BR was more important for soybean. The negative relationship between VCR of the main crop plus cover crop and weed density in each row section suggests that the difference in ground cover was one of the reasons for the difference in weed density between the two main crops. The cover crop markedly increased the VCR in BR, but only slightly increased VCR in IR in both main crops. These results suggest that the cover crop was more compatible with soybean than with maize, because the high weed density in IR of maize could not be decreased sufficiently by the slight increase of VCR in BR by the cover crop.
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
Within rows, weed density was higher in maize than soybean.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In IR, weed density was higher in maize than in soybean”
e1“There was a significant difference in the spatial distribution of weeds between the two main crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Between rows, weed density was higher in soybean than maize.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Interactor
- weedse1weed
- Outcome
- weedse1
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- maizee0
- Setting
- BRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In IR, weed density was higher in maize than in soybean, while in BR, it was higher in soybean.”
e1“There was a significant difference in the spatial distribution of weeds between the two main crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground cover of the main crop plus cover crop was negatively related to weed density in each row section.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- cover crope0
- Interactor
- weedse1weed
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- negativee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The negative relationship between VCR of the main crop plus cover crop and weed density in each row section”
t0“Soybean than with Maize”
e1“spatial distribution of weeds between the two main crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop markedly increased between-row vegetation cover in both main crops.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- cover crope0
- Outcome
- VCR in BRe0
- Direction
- markedly increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cover crop markedly increased the VCR in BR, but only slightly increased VCR in IR in both main crops.”
t0“Soybean than with Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop only slightly increased within-row vegetation cover in both main crops.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- cover crope0
- Outcome
- VCR in IRe0
- Direction
- slightly increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cover crop markedly increased the VCR in BR, but only slightly increased VCR in IR in both main crops.”
t0“Soybean than with Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The cover crop was more compatible with soybean than maize for weed management.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- cover crop was more compatible with soybean than with maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cover crop was more compatible with soybean than with maize, because the high weed density in IR of maize could not be decreased sufficiently by the slight increase of VCR in BR by the cover crop.”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · molecular: metabolites · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.