Paper · 2019 · African Journal of Agricultural Research

Effects of conservation tillage on maize (Zea mays L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) chlorophyll, sugars and yields in humic nitisols soils of Embu County, Kenya

Kyalo Munyao Joseph; Hungu Gathaara Moses; Ngera Micheni Alfred

5
claims
12
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the effects of conservation tillage (CT) practices on leaf chlorophyll content, sugars and yields of Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. for two consecutive cropping seasons at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization farm in Embu County, Kenya. The experimental design was a Randomized Complete Block Design with 9 treatments replicated 3 times. The treatments were, conventional tillage sole maize, zero tillage sole maize, Furrows/Ridges sole maize, conventional tillage sole bean, zero tillage sole bean, furrows and ridges sole bean, conventional tillage maize-bean intercrop, zero tillage maize-bean intercrop, furrows/ridges maize-bean intercrop. Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants grown under the CT plots had significantly more chlorophyll content, more sugar content and more grain weight than those under conventional tillage practices (CVT). The results provided a physiological basis for the observed increase in yields. They led to a conclusion that the CT method is suitable for improving crop productivity through enhancing physiological functions in the leaf. Key words: Conservation tillage, chlorophyll, grain weigh.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plants under conservation tillage had significantly more leaf chlorophyll content than under conventional tillage

Taxon
Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L.Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse1
Treatment
CT plotse1
Outcome
chlorophyll contente1
Direction
moree1
Comparator
conventional tillage practicese1
Setting
Embu County, Kenyae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus vulgaris · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization farm in Embu County, Kenya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 220–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants grown under the CT plots had significantly more chlorophyll content, more sugar content and more grain weight than those under conventional tillage practices (CVT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 715–923 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plants under conservation tillage had significantly more sugar content than under conventional tillage

Taxon
Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L.Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse1
Treatment
CT plotse1
Outcome
sugar contente1
Direction
moree1
Comparator
conventional tillage practicese1
Setting
Embu County, Kenyae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus vulgaris · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization farm in Embu County, Kenya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 220–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants grown under the CT plots had significantly more chlorophyll content, more sugar content and more grain weight than those under conventional tillage practices (CVT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 715–923 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plants under conservation tillage had significantly more grain weight than under conventional tillage

Taxon
Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L.Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse1
Treatment
CT plotse1
Outcome
grain weighte1
Direction
moree1
Comparator
conventional tillage practicese1
Setting
Embu County, Kenyae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus vulgaris · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization farm in Embu County, Kenya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 220–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants grown under the CT plots had significantly more chlorophyll content, more sugar content and more grain weight than those under conventional tillage practices (CVT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 715–923 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation tillage increased crop yields compared with conventional tillage

Taxon
Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L.Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse1
Treatment
CT plotse1
Outcome
yieldse2
Direction
increasee2
Comparator
conventional tillage practicese1
Setting
Embu County, Kenyae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus vulgaris · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization farm in Embu County, Kenya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 220–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants grown under the CT plots had significantly more chlorophyll content, more sugar content and more grain weight than those under conventional tillage practices (CVT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 715–923 · show in text ↑
e2

“The results provided a physiological basis for the observed increase in yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 925–1003 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation tillage is suitable for improving crop productivity through leaf physiological functions

Taxon
Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L.Phaseolus vulgarisZea mayse1
Outcome
improving crop productivitye3
Setting
Embu County, Kenyae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus vulgaris · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization farm in Embu County, Kenya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 220–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Zea mays L. and Phaseolus vulgaris L. plants grown under the CT plots had significantly more chlorophyll content, more sugar content and more grain weight than those under conventional tillage practices (CVT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 715–923 · show in text ↑
e3

“They led to a conclusion that the CT method is suitable for improving crop productivity through enhancing physiological functions in the leaf”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1146 · show in text ↑

tillage · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

tillage · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 15 positive, 5 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

tillage · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results

64 papers: 41 positive, 23 negative or no effect

40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. 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.