Abstract
In order to study the effects of planting method on root characters and yield of maize,root bleeding sap,support root numbers,dry weight of support root,support root layer numbers,underground root dry weight,yield and its characters of maize were investigated in wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage on the conditions of field experiments.The results showed that the differences of root bleeding sap,support root numbers,dry weight of support root,support root layer numbers reached signifcant level(p 0.01)between the two planting methods,but the dry weight of underground root was not signifcant.The yield with wide/narrow row tillage increased by 12.8% than conventional tillage,and the difference was significant(p0.01),but the differences of ear numbers,grain numbers per ear,100-seeds weight and volume-weight were not significant.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Root bleeding sap differed significantly between planting methods.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences of root bleeding sap,support root numbers,dry weight of support root,support root layer numbers reached signifcant level(p 0.01)between the two planting methods”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Support root numbers differed significantly between planting methods.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences of root bleeding sap,support root numbers,dry weight of support root,support root layer numbers reached signifcant level(p 0.01)between the two planting methods”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Support root dry weight differed significantly between planting methods.
- Treatment
- wide/narrow row tillagee1
- Outcome
- dry weight of support roote0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences of root bleeding sap,support root numbers,dry weight of support root,support root layer numbers reached signifcant level(p 0.01)between the two planting methods”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Support root layer numbers differed significantly between planting methods.
- Treatment
- wide/narrow row tillagee1
- Outcome
- support root layer numberse0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences of root bleeding sap,support root numbers,dry weight of support root,support root layer numbers reached signifcant level(p 0.01)between the two planting methods”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Underground root dry weight did not differ significantly between planting methods.
- Treatment
- wide/narrow row tillagee1
- Outcome
- dry weight of underground roote0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but the dry weight of underground root was not signifcant.”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Wide/narrow row tillage increased maize yield by 12.8% compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- wide/narrow row tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield with wide/narrow row tillage increased by 12.8% than conventional tillage,and the difference was significant(p0.01)”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Ear numbers, grain numbers per ear and 100-seeds weight did not differ significantly between methods.
- Treatment
- wide/narrow row tillagee1
- Outcome
- ear numbers,grain numbers per ear,100-seeds weighte0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences of ear numbers,grain numbers per ear,100-seeds weight and volume-weight were not significant.”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Volume-weight did not differ significantly between methods.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences of ear numbers,grain numbers per ear,100-seeds weight and volume-weight were not significant.”
t0“Maize”
e1“wide/narrow row tillage and conventional tillage”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.