Abstract
Different tillage practices are used for maize cropping in Libya. Yet, the effects of these practices on soil physical properties and maize growth and yield are not known. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different tillage practices on soil physical properties and maize growth and yield in Libya. A field experiment was conducted in 2009 and repeated in 2010 using three tillage practices (conventional tillage (CT), ridge tillage (RT) and zero tillage (ZT)). Data about soil physical properties (penetration resistance (PR), bulk density (BD), total porosity (TP) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks)) across soil depths, maize growth components (plant height, number of leaves, leaf area index and dry root weight) at 60, 75 and 125 days after planting, and maize yield (grain and stover) at harvest were collected and statistically analyzed in both years. To evaluate the effects of the tillage practices economically, the tillage operation cost and production cost were calculated. The results showed that at the surface layer (0 - 20 cm), CT had lower PR and lower BD, but higher TP and Ks compared to RT and ZT. At 20 - 40 cm and 40 - 60 cm depths, the lower PR and PD and higher TP and Ks were under ZT and RT compared to CT. All maize growth parameters at different times were highest for CT followed by RT and lowest for ZT. The CT practice presented the highest grain and stover yield followed by RT and ZT. However, harvest index was higher where ZT was applied. While tillage operation costs were the highest for CT followed by RT and ZT, the production costs were the highest for ZT followed by RT and CT. In general, the CT practice produced higher maize growth and yield, lower production cost, and higher tillage operation cost than those are planted using RT and ZT practices.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Surface soil penetration resistance and bulk density were lower with CT than RT and ZT.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- PR and lower BDe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- surface layer (0 - 20 cm)e0
- Comparator
- RT and ZTe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“at the surface layer (0 - 20 cm), CT had lower PR and lower BD, but higher TP and Ks compared to RT and ZT”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface total porosity and saturated conductivity were higher under CT than RT and ZT.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- TP and Kse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- surface layer (0 - 20 cm)e0
- Comparator
- RT and ZTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“at the surface layer (0 - 20 cm), CT had lower PR and lower BD, but higher TP and Ks compared to RT and ZT”
Claim · model-written summary
Deeper soil PR and PD were lower under ZT and RT than CT.
- Treatment
- ZT and RTe0
- Outcome
- PR and PDe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- 20 - 40 cm and 40 - 60 cm depthse0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“At 20 - 40 cm and 40 - 60 cm depths, the lower PR and PD and higher TP and Ks were under ZT and RT compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Deeper soil TP and Ks were higher under ZT and RT than CT.
- Treatment
- ZT and RTe0
- Outcome
- TP and Kse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 20 - 40 cm and 40 - 60 cm depthse0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“At 20 - 40 cm and 40 - 60 cm depths, the lower PR and PD and higher TP and Ks were under ZT and RT compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize growth parameters were highest under CT, then RT, then ZT.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- maize growth parameterse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- lowest for ZTe0
- Comparator
- RTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“All maize growth parameters at different times were highest for CT followed by RT and lowest for ZT”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain and stover yields ranked CT, RT, then ZT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“The CT practice presented the highest grain and stover yield followed by RT and ZT”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest index was higher with ZT.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“harvest index was higher where ZT was applied”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage operation costs were highest for CT, then RT, then ZT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“tillage operation costs were the highest for CT followed by RT and ZT”
Claim · model-written summary
Production costs were highest for ZT, then RT, then CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“the production costs were the highest for ZT followed by RT and CT”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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
- no effect
- negative
- 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
- no effect
- positive
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.