Abstract
The introduction of conservation agriculture (CA) for smallholders increased the competition for crop residues between crop and livestock enterprises of the mixed smallholder farming system. Smallholders practicing CA have resorted to using grass and leaf litter in addition to available crop residues. The effect of these different mulching materials on maize (Zea mays L.) growth and yield is not well documented in smallholder CA systems of southern Africa. A two-year experiment was run in 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons to evaluate the effect of maize residues, grass (Hyparrhenia filipendula (L.) Stapf.) and leaf litter that farmers are currently using and residues from leguminous species, sunhemp (Crotolaria juncea L.) and Tephrosia (Tephrosia vogelii ((Hook) f.)) on maize nitrogen (N) uptake, growth and yield. Significant differences in soil water content across treatments were only observed during March in 2012/13 season. Maize residues retained more soil water and Tephrosia had the lowest soil water content when seasonal rainfall pattern was erratic. Grass and Tephrosia treatments had the lowest chlorophyll content. Conventional ploughing, maize residues and leaf litter had similar chlorophyll content which was significantly higher than grass and Tephrosia treatments. At a site with higher initial soil fertility conventional ploughing treatment out yielded the other treatments by 727–1265 kg ha−1. With more degraded sandy soil conventional practice had 119–430 kg ha−1 more maize grain than the CA treatments. With adequate fertilization, the mulching materials have a similar effect on maize growth in basins and direct seeding. Further studies on different application rates of mulching materials and mineral N fertilizer, and nutrient release patterns of these residues are critical in order to better understand soil fertility management under smallholder CA systems.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water content differed significantly across treatments only in March 2012/13.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant differences in soil water content across treatments were only observed during March in 2012/13 season”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize residue mulch retained more soil water under erratic rainfall.
- Treatment
- Maize residuese0
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Qualifier
- seasonal rainfall pattern was erratice0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize residues retained more soil water and Tephrosia had the lowest soil water content when seasonal rainfall pattern was erratic”
Claim · model-written summary
Tephrosia mulch had the lowest soil water content under erratic rainfall.
- Treatment
- Tephrosiae0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Qualifier
- seasonal rainfall pattern was erratice0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tephrosia had the lowest soil water content when seasonal rainfall pattern was erratic”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grass mulch produced among the lowest maize chlorophyll contents.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grass and Tephrosia treatments had the lowest chlorophyll content”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tephrosia mulch produced among the lowest maize chlorophyll contents.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grass and Tephrosia treatments had the lowest chlorophyll content”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional ploughing had significantly higher chlorophyll content than grass and Tephrosia treatments.
- Treatment
- Conventional ploughinge0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- grass and Tephrosia treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional ploughing, maize residues and leaf litter had similar chlorophyll content which was significantly higher than grass and Tephrosia treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize residue mulch had significantly higher chlorophyll content than grass and Tephrosia treatments.
- Treatment
- maize residuese0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- grass and Tephrosia treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional ploughing, maize residues and leaf litter had similar chlorophyll content which was significantly higher than grass and Tephrosia treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf litter mulch had significantly higher chlorophyll content than grass and Tephrosia treatments.
- Treatment
- leaf littere0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- grass and Tephrosia treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional ploughing, maize residues and leaf litter had similar chlorophyll content which was significantly higher than grass and Tephrosia treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
At a more fertile site, conventional ploughing yielded 727–1265 kg ha−1 more than the other treatments.
- Treatment
- conventional ploughing treatmente0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- out yieldede0
- Value
- 727–1265 kg ha−1e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
- Setting
- site with higher initial soil fertilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At a site with higher initial soil fertility conventional ploughing treatment out yielded the other treatments by 727–1265 kg ha−1”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
On more degraded sandy soil, conventional practice yielded 119–430 kg ha−1 more maize grain than conservation agriculture.
- Treatment
- conventional practicee0
- Outcome
- maize graine0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 119–430 kg ha−1e0
- Comparator
- CA treatmentse0
- Setting
- more degraded sandy soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With more degraded sandy soil conventional practice had 119–430 kg ha−1 more maize grain than the CA treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
With adequate fertilization, mulching materials had similar effects on maize growth under basin and direct seeding.
- Treatment
- mulching materialse0
- Outcome
- maize growthe0
- Direction
- similar effecte0
- Qualifier
- adequate fertilizatione0
- Comparator
- basins and direct seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With adequate fertilization, the mulching materials have a similar effect on maize growth in basins and direct seeding”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →mulching · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 122 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
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.