Abstract
Core Ideas Efficient use of crop residues can improve circular economy in agro‐ecosystems. Amount of stover to the field explained the variation in root length density and root dry weight density in double cropping of winter wheat and summer maize. Returning stover increased the yield of summer maize. Root characteristics and the yield of summer maize improved by returning stover. A 5‐yr experiment was conducted to explore the effects of returning various amounts of stover to the field on root characteristics and yield in a wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) and maize ( Zea mays L.) double‐cropping system. The experiment was designed as a randomized block design with three replications for three treatments: based on all stalks of winter wheat returned to the field (i) all summer maize stalks were mechanically pulverized and returned to the field (SR); (ii) half of the summer maize stalks were mechanically pulverized and returned to the field (1/2 SR); and (iii) all summer maize stalks were fully removed (CK). Results indicated that, in the SR treatment, root fresh weight (RFW) and root dry weight (RDW) were 19.4 and 18.5% higher, respectively, compared with the CK treatment. Root length density (RLD), root surface area density (RSAD) were 13.7 and 29.4% higher in the SR treatment, compared with the CK treatment. The yield of summer maize was 15.1 and 17.1% higher in the SR and 1/2 SR treatments, respectively, compared with the CK treatment. Furthermore, RLD, RSAD, root dry weight density (RDWD), and root length in the 1/2 SR treatment were significantly higher than those in the SR treatment. These results indicated that moderate amounts of straw returned to the field had the greatest effect on root growth and development of maize. This work provides a theoretical basis for optimizing crop yield and the use of straw resources.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
Stover amount explained variation in root length density and root dry weight density.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Amount of stover to the field explained the variation in root length density and root dry weight density in double cropping of winter wheat and summer maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
SR increased maize root fresh weight by 19.4% relative to CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the SR treatment, root fresh weight (RFW) and root dry weight (RDW) were 19.4 and 18.5% higher, respectively, compared with the CK treatment”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SR increased maize root dry weight by 18.5% relative to CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the SR treatment, root fresh weight (RFW) and root dry weight (RDW) were 19.4 and 18.5% higher, respectively, compared with the CK treatment”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SR increased root length density by 13.7% relative to CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root length density (RLD), root surface area density (RSAD) were 13.7 and 29.4% higher in the SR treatment, compared with the CK treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SR increased root surface area density by 29.4% relative to CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root length density (RLD), root surface area density (RSAD) were 13.7 and 29.4% higher in the SR treatment, compared with the CK treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SR increased summer maize yield by 15.1% relative to CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield of summer maize was 15.1 and 17.1% higher in the SR and 1/2 SR treatments, respectively, compared with the CK treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Half SR increased summer maize yield by 17.1% relative to CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield of summer maize was 15.1 and 17.1% higher in the SR and 1/2 SR treatments, respectively, compared with the CK treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Half SR significantly increased RLD, RSAD and RDWD relative to SR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Furthermore, RLD, RSAD, root dry weight density (RDWD), and root length in the 1/2 SR treatment were significantly higher than those in the SR treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Half SR significantly increased root length relative to SR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Furthermore, RLD, RSAD, root dry weight density (RDWD), and root length in the 1/2 SR treatment were significantly higher than those in the SR treatment.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate straw return had the greatest effect on maize root growth and development.
- Treatment
- moderate amounts of straw returned to the fielde0
- Outcome
- root growth and developmente0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These results indicated that moderate amounts of straw returned to the field had the greatest effect on root growth and development of maize.”
The same questions in other papers
organic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
125 papers more in this group
See all 129 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.