Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Poor inferior kernel grain filling is a challenge that limits summer maize yield. The effect and mechanism of conservation tillage on improving grain filling of inferior kernel in semi‐arid rained areas remain uncertain and there has been little research on tillage management integrated with straw mulching to improve soil water content and photosynthesis in the Loess Plateau region. A 2 year (2019–2020) field experiment was established to study the impact of tillage practices on soil water content and summer maize root system morphology, photosynthetic capacity, inferior kernel grain filling, and grain yield. Treatments included reduced tillage (RT), no tillage (NT), and conventional tillage (CT). RESULTS Under RT and NT, the final 100‐kernel weight and maximum and mean grain filling rates were higher than CT. Reduced tillage and NT increased soil water content at the jointing stage, silking stage and grain filling stage in comparison with CT. They increased root system morphology and dry matter accumulation, net photosynthetic rate, transpiration efficiency, and stomatal conductance in comparison with CT, and they also decreased intercellular CO 2 concentration, and they increased chlorophyll content and above‐ground dry matter accumulation in comparison with CT. Reduced tillage and NT increased evapotranspiration of maize, and ultimately, increased grain yield by 17% and 14%, respectively, in comparison with CT. CONCLUSION Conservation tillage could promote summer maize photosynthetic capacity and grain filling of inferior kernels by regulating soil water content and root system morphology. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased final 100-kernel weight versus conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- reduced tillage (RT), no tillage (NT)e1
- Outcome
- final 100‐kernel weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under RT and NT, the final 100‐kernel weight and maximum and mean grain filling rates were higher than CT.”
e1“Treatments included reduced tillage (RT), no tillage (NT), and conventional tillage (CT).”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased maximum and mean grain-filling rates versus conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- reduced tillage (RT), no tillage (NT)e1
- Outcome
- maximum and mean grain filling ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under RT and NT, the final 100‐kernel weight and maximum and mean grain filling rates were higher than CT.”
e1“Treatments included reduced tillage (RT), no tillage (NT), and conventional tillage (CT).”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased soil water at jointing, silking and grain filling versus CT.
- Organ / stage
- jointing stage, silking stage and grain filling stagee0
- Treatment
- Reduced tillage and NTe0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced tillage and NT increased soil water content at the jointing stage, silking stage and grain filling stage in comparison with CT.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased root-system morphology and dry matter accumulation versus CT.
- Treatment
- Reduced tillage and NTe1
- Outcome
- root system morphology and dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“They increased root system morphology and dry matter accumulation, net photosynthetic rate, transpiration efficiency, and stomatal conductance in comparison with CT”
e1“Reduced tillage and NT increased soil water content”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased net photosynthetic rate, transpiration efficiency and stomatal conductance versus CT.
- Treatment
- Reduced tillage and NTe1
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic rate, transpiration efficiency, and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“They increased root system morphology and dry matter accumulation, net photosynthetic rate, transpiration efficiency, and stomatal conductance in comparison with CT”
e1“Reduced tillage and NT increased soil water content”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage decreased intercellular CO2 concentration versus CT.
- Treatment
- Reduced tillage and NTe2
- Outcome
- intercellular CO 2 concentratione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they also decreased intercellular CO 2 concentration”
e1“they also decreased intercellular CO 2 concentration, and they increased chlorophyll content and above‐ground dry matter accumulation in comparison with CT”
e2“Reduced tillage and NT increased soil water content”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased chlorophyll content and above-ground dry matter accumulation versus CT.
- Treatment
- Reduced tillage and NTe1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll content and above‐ground dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they increased chlorophyll content and above‐ground dry matter accumulation in comparison with CT”
e1“Reduced tillage and NT increased soil water content”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced and no tillage increased maize evapotranspiration.
- Treatment
- Reduced tillage and NTe0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration of maizee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced tillage and NT increased evapotranspiration of maize”
e1“Reduced tillage and NT increased evapotranspiration of maize, and ultimately, increased grain yield by 17% and 14%, respectively, in comparison with CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage increased maize grain yield by 17% versus CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced tillage and NT increased evapotranspiration of maize, and ultimately, increased grain yield by 17% and 14%, respectively, in comparison with CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased maize grain yield by 14% versus CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced tillage and NT increased evapotranspiration of maize, and ultimately, increased grain yield by 17% and 14%, respectively, in comparison with CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude conservation tillage can promote photosynthetic capacity and inferior-kernel grain filling through soil water and root morphology.
- Treatment
- Conservation tillagee0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic capacity and grain filling of inferior kernelse0
- Qualifier
- regulating soil water content and root system morphologye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservation tillage could promote summer maize photosynthetic capacity and grain filling of inferior kernels by regulating soil water content and root system morphology.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →tillage · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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
- positive
- 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.