Abstract
The effect of crop production factors on maize yield are examined on chernozem soil in a more than 30 year old long-term experiment on the Látókép Experiment Site of the Centre for Agricultural and Applied Economic Sciences of the University of Debrecen. The aim of research is to evaluate the effect of fertilisation, cultivation, plant number, genorype and irrigation. The analysis of the data in the database of the examined period makes it possible to evaluate the effect of maize yield, as well as that of the crop production factors and the crop year, while the correlations and interactions between these factors were also examined. During the examination of the cultivation treatments, it was concluded that the highest yield was obtained as a result of autumn ploughing, but its effect largely differs in the irrigated and the nonirrigated treatments. Based on our examinations, strip cultivation should be applied periodically (e.g. strip – strip – ploughing – loosening) in areas with favourable soil conditions free from compacted layers. In years with smaller, average precipitation supply or when the precipitation was higher than average, higher plant numbers were more favourable. Under drier conditions, but especially in several consecutively dry years, a lower plant number can be recommended which is not higher than 60 thousand per hectare. In the case of favourable water supply, 70-80 thousand plants per hectare can be used. The yield increasing effect of fertilisation was significant in the case of both non-irrigated and irrigated conditions, but it was much more moderate in the non-irrigated treatment. The extent of weed coverage was significantly affected by the previous crop. In the case of a favourable previous crop (wheat), the weed coverage was significantly lower than after an unfavourable previous crop (maize). In the case of the same previous crop (maize), the extent of weed coverage was mostly determined by the crop year and the extent of precipitation supply. Irrigation is not enough in itself, because if it was not accompanied by intensive nutrient management, yields started to decline.The results of researhc, development and innovation contributed to the technological method which makes it possible to apply locally adjusted sowing seed, fertiliser and pesticide in a differentiated way, as well as to change the method of operations within the given plot.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Autumn ploughing gave the highest maize yield.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest yield was obtained as a result of autumn ploughing”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of autumn ploughing differed between irrigated and nonirrigated treatments.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its effect largely differs in the irrigated and the nonirrigated treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Periodic strip cultivation is recommended on favourable soils without compacted layers.
- Outcome
- strip cultivation should be applied periodicallye0
- Qualifier
- areas with favourable soil conditions free from compacted layerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“strip cultivation should be applied periodically (e.g. strip – strip – ploughing – loosening) in areas with favourable soil conditions free from compacted layers”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher plant numbers were favourable in years with average or above-average precipitation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In years with smaller, average precipitation supply or when the precipitation was higher than average, higher plant numbers were more favourable”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Under dry conditions, a plant number no higher than 60 thousand per hectare is recommended.
- Outcome
- a lower plant numbere0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 60 thousand per hectaree0
- Qualifier
- several consecutively dry yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under drier conditions, but especially in several consecutively dry years, a lower plant number can be recommended which is not higher than 60 thousand per hectare”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With favourable water supply, 70-80 thousand plants per hectare can be used.
- Outcome
- plants per hectaree0
- Value
- 70-80 thousand plants per hectaree0
- Qualifier
- favourable water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of favourable water supply, 70-80 thousand plants per hectare can be used”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilisation significantly increased yield under both irrigated and non-irrigated conditions.
- Treatment
- fertilisatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Qualifier
- both non-irrigated and irrigated conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield increasing effect of fertilisation was significant in the case of both non-irrigated and irrigated conditions”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The fertilisation yield effect was more moderate without irrigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was much more moderate in the non-irrigated treatment”
e1“The yield increasing effect of fertilisation was significant in the case of both non-irrigated and irrigated conditions”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Previous crop significantly affected weed coverage.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The extent of weed coverage was significantly affected by the previous crop”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed coverage was lower after wheat than after maize.
- Treatment
- previous crop (wheat)e1
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed coveragee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- previous crop (maize)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the weed coverage was significantly lower than after an unfavourable previous crop (maize)”
e1“In the case of a favourable previous crop (wheat), the weed coverage was significantly lower than after an unfavourable previous crop (maize)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After maize, weed coverage depended mainly on crop year and precipitation.
- Treatment
- the crop year and the extent of precipitation supplye0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed coveragee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the extent of weed coverage was mostly determined by the crop year and the extent of precipitation supply”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation without intensive nutrient management led to declining yields.
- Treatment
- Irrigatione1
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- declinee0
- Qualifier
- not accompanied by intensive nutrient managemente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“if it was not accompanied by intensive nutrient management, yields started to decline”
e1“Irrigation is not enough in itself, because if it was not accompanied by intensive nutrient management, yields started to decline”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The research contributed to a method for locally differentiated seed, fertiliser and pesticide application and plot operations.
- Outcome
- technological methode0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“technological method which makes it possible to apply locally adjusted sowing seed, fertiliser and pesticide in a differentiated way, as well as to change the method of operations within the given plot”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →rotation · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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 →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.