Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the combination of treatment levels of crop management factors which can optimize and sustain maize yield under varying climatic conditions. The effect of winter wheat forecrop, three tillage systems (Mouldboard-MT, Strip-ST, Ripper-RT), two planting densities (60,000 & 80,000 plants ha-1), three fertilizer levels (N0-control, N80, N160 kg ha-1) with four replications in irrigated and non-irrigated treatments were evaluated over a five year period, 2015–2019. The obtained results revealed that growing season rainfall positively correlated with yield, whereas, temperature negatively correlated with yield. Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT. In years with favorable rainfall, yields of MT and RT were significantly (P<0.05) higher than ST. However, in a less favorable year, such as 2015, with 299 mm growing season rainfall and the lowest July rainfall (59% below mean) there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in yield among the three tillage treatments. Higher planting density (80,000), and fertilization rate (N160) in tandem with MT are treatments combination conducive for high yield under favorable climatic conditions, whereas, in years with low rainfall and high temperatures, RT and ST offer alternative to MT for optimum yield with 60,000 plants ha-1 and N80 treatment level. Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance, fertilization 35.8%, forecrop 12.8%, plant density 3.4%, tillage 1.2% and irrigation <1%. It is conclusive that with proper selection of the appropriate levels of agrotechnological inputs the adverse effect of weather on yield can be mitigated.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Growing season rainfall correlated positively with maize yield.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growing season rainfall positively correlated with yield”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Temperature correlated negatively with maize yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“temperature negatively correlated with yield”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Adverse weather affected maize yield less severely in biculture.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Adverse weather affected maize yield less severely in irrigated plots.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Adverse weather affected maize yield less severely at lower planting density.
- Treatment
- lower planting density (60,000)e0
- Outcome
- Impact of adverse weather on yielde0
- Direction
- less severee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Adverse weather affected maize yield less severely at lower fertilizer rate N80.
- Treatment
- lower fertilizer rate (N80)e0
- Outcome
- Impact of adverse weather on yielde0
- Direction
- less severee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Adverse weather affected maize yield less severely under RT than MT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Adverse weather affected maize yield less severely under ST than MT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Impact of adverse weather on yield was less severe in biculture, irrigated plots, at lower planting density (60,000), lower fertilizer rate (N80) and in RT and ST, compared to MT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under favorable rainfall, MT maize yield was significantly higher than ST.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In years with favorable rainfall, yields of MT and RT were significantly (P<0.05) higher than ST.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under favorable rainfall, RT maize yield was significantly higher than ST.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In years with favorable rainfall, yields of MT and RT were significantly (P<0.05) higher than ST.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2015, maize yield did not differ significantly among three tillage treatments.
- Treatment
- three tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Qualifier
- 2015e0
- Comparator
- among the three tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a less favorable year, such as 2015, with 299 mm growing season rainfall and the lowest July rainfall (59% below mean) there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in yield among the three tillage treatments.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop year explained 20.7% of maize yield variance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization explained 35.8% of maize yield variance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fertilization 35.8%”
e1“Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Forecrop explained 12.8% of maize yield variance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“forecrop 12.8%”
e1“Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density explained 3.4% of maize yield variance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant density 3.4%”
e1“Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage explained 1.2% of maize yield variance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tillage 1.2%”
e1“Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation explained less than 1% of maize yield variance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation <1%”
e1“Crop year effect accounted for 20.7% of yield variance”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
For high maize yield under favorable climate, authors recommend 80,000 planting density and N160 fertilization with MT.
- Treatment
- Higher planting density (80,000), and fertilization rate (N160) in tandem with MTe0
- Outcome
- high yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher planting density (80,000), and fertilization rate (N160) in tandem with MT are treatments combination conducive for high yield under favorable climatic conditions”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In hot, low rainfall years, authors recommend RT with 60,000 plants ha-1 and N80 for optimum maize yield.
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- optimum yielde0
- Value
- 60,000 plants ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- in years with low rainfall and high temperaturese0
- Comparator
- MTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in years with low rainfall and high temperatures, RT and ST offer alternative to MT for optimum yield with 60,000 plants ha-1 and N80 treatment level.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In hot, low rainfall years, authors recommend ST with 60,000 plants ha-1 and N80 for optimum maize yield.
- Treatment
- STe0
- Outcome
- optimum yielde0
- Value
- N80e0
- Qualifier
- in years with low rainfall and high temperaturese0
- Comparator
- MTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in years with low rainfall and high temperatures, RT and ST offer alternative to MT for optimum yield with 60,000 plants ha-1 and N80 treatment level.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- negative
654 papers more in this group
See all 658 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
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
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.