Abstract
The goal of the paper is to compare the impact of conventional tillage and no-tillage technology on the growth, the yield and yield components of sweet corn, cultivated on chromic luvisols. A field experiment with Super Sweet 71,12 R hybrid was carried out in 2014 in the region of Sofia, Bulgaria. The impact of both systems on the total fresh ear yield, marketable fresh ear yield, total ear number, marketable ear number, single marketable fresh ear mass, marketable ear row number, one row kernel number of a marketable ear, marketable fresh ear kernel mass, plant height, leaf number per plant, ear legth, and tassel length was established. Analysis of variance was applied to all data obtained. The experiment was carried out on chromic luvisols, in a temperate-continental climate and in a very humid year. The results showed that the conventional tillage in such nature conditions have had better performance than the no-tillage technology. The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha; kernel mass of a single fresh ear was with 22.6% higher, i.e. 163.8 g vs. 133.6 g, the 1000kernel mass was with 14.4% higher, i.e. 337.2 g vs. 293.0 g. Analogously, the plants were longer and had thicker stems with greater leaf number, resulting in 12.5% greater fresh-ear length -20.7 cm. The total fresh biomass under conventional tillage reaches 633.0 g/plant vs. 414.6 g/plant under no-tillage and the dry matter -145.6 g vs. 103.7 g/plant. The protein content was 13.8% vs. 12.7%. The production under conventional tillage was more profitable. The price of a marketable corn ear was much lower -0.0358 EUR/pc vs. 0.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Marketable fresh ear yield of sweet corn under conventional tillage was twice that under no-tillage (8.5 vs 4.2 Mg/ha).
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel mass of a single marketable fresh ear was 22.6% higher under conventional tillage than under no-tillage.
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
e2“kernel mass of a single fresh ear was with 22.6% higher, i.e. 163.8 g vs. 133.6 g”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1000-kernel mass was 14.4% higher under conventional tillage than under no-tillage.
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
e3“the 1000kernel mass was with 14.4% higher, i.e. 337.2 g vs. 293.0 g”
Claim · model-written summary
Plants under conventional tillage were longer than under no-tillage.
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
e4“plant height, leaf number per plant, ear legth, and tassel length”
e5“Analogously, the plants were longer and had thicker stems with greater leaf number”
Claim · model-written summary
Fresh-ear length was 12.5% greater under conventional tillage than under no-tillage.
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
e6“resulting in 12.5% greater fresh-ear length -20.7 cm”
Claim · model-written summary
Total fresh biomass per plant was higher under conventional tillage than under no-tillage (633.0 vs 414.6 g/plant).
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e7“The total fresh biomass under conventional tillage reaches 633.0 g/plant vs. 414.6 g/plant under no-tillage and the dry matter -145.6 g vs. 103.7 g/plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter per plant was higher under conventional tillage than under no-tillage (145.6 vs 103.7 g/plant).
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e7“The total fresh biomass under conventional tillage reaches 633.0 g/plant vs. 414.6 g/plant under no-tillage and the dry matter -145.6 g vs. 103.7 g/plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein content was higher under conventional tillage than under no-tillage (13.8% vs 12.7%).
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
e2“The protein content was 13.8% vs. 12.7%”
Claim · model-written summary
Production under conventional tillage was more profitable than under no-tillage.
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The yield of marketable fresh ears under conventional tillage was twice higher than that under no-tillage, i.e. 8.5 Mg/ha vs. 4.2 Mg/ha”
e2“The production under conventional tillage was more profitable”
Claim · model-written summary
The price of a marketable corn ear was much lower in the reported comparison (-0.0358 EUR/pc).
- Taxon
- sweet cornt0
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee1
- Outcome
- price of a marketable corn eare2
- Direction
- much lowere2
- Value
- -0.0358 EUR/pce2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“SWEET CORN”
e1“The production under conventional tillage was more profitable”
e2“The price of a marketable corn ear was much lower -0.0358 EUR/pc vs. 0”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →tillage · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
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
- 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.