Abstract
Maize is one of the most highly produced crops around the world. Factors such as population density, solar radiation, temperature, availability of nutrients and water, and proper tillage method can have favorable results in increasing yield. This project began in 2015, at two different locations in Georgia (Tifton and Camilla), GA, USA, and has been evaluated for three consecutive maize growing seasons. In each location, a different irrigation method was applied; the University of Georgia (UGA) maize checkbook method was utilized in Tifton and a soil moisture sensor-based method was utilized in Camilla. The different treatments consisted of two tillage methods, conservation and conventional, and four plant densities (69K, 88K, 99K, and 133K plants/ha). The purpose of the project was the evaluation of water requirements by population and tillage method for achieving high maize yields. Soil moisture information was collected hourly in both fields. The results showed that higher plant densities do not necessarily require higher irrigation amounts and do not always have the best results in terms of yield. Conventional tillage had slightly better yield results but not statistically different from conservation tilled plots. Additionally, the results showed that applied irrigation can help in higher maize production. However, increasing the amount of water does not directly equate to higher yield results.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Higher plant densities did not necessarily require higher irrigation amounts.
- Treatment
- higher plant densitiese0
- Outcome
- irrigation amountse0
- Direction
- do not necessarily require highere0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher plant densities do not necessarily require higher irrigation amounts”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher plant densities did not always produce the best yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher plant densities do not necessarily require higher irrigation amounts and do not always have the best results in terms of yield.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave slightly better yields than conservation tillage, with no statistically significant difference.
- Treatment
- Conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- slightly bettere0
- Comparator
- conservation tilled plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage had slightly better yield results but not statistically different from conservation tilled plots.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Applied irrigation could increase maize production.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied irrigation can help in higher maize production.”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing water amount did not directly equate to higher maize yield.
- Treatment
- increasing the amount of watere0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- does not directly equate to highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the amount of water does not directly equate to higher yield results.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- 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
- positive
- 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.