Abstract
Plastic-film mulching has been widely used to increase maize yield in the semiarid area of China. However, whether long-term plastic-film mulching is conducive to agricultural sustainability in this region remains controversial. A field experiments was stared in 2013 with different film mulching methods, including (i) a control method, flat planting without mulching (CK), (ii) flat planting with half film mulching (P), (iii) film mulching on ridges and planting in narrow furrows (S), (iv) full film mulching on double ridges (D), and (v) film mulching on ridges and planting in wide furrows (R). In order to evaluated the effects on soil organic carbon (SOC) content, storage, fractions and carbon management index (CMI) after nine consecutive years of plastic-film mulching. The results showed that long-term plastic-film mulching generally maintained the initial SOC level. Compared with no mulching, plastic-film mulching average increased crop yield, biomass yield, and root biomass by 48.38, 35.06, and 37.32%, respectively, which led to the improvement of SOC sequestration. Specifically, plastic film-mulching significantly improved CMI, and increased 13.59% SOC content, 7.47% SOC storage and 13.78% easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC) on average, but decreased other labile fractions. SOC sequestration and CMI were improved by changing plastic film-mulching methods, and S treatment had the best effect among the four mulching methods, so it could be used as a reasonable film-mulching method for sustainable agricultural development in semiarid area.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Long term film mulching generally maintained initial soil organic carbon.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“long-term plastic-film mulching generally maintained the initial SOC level”
e1“maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching increased crop yield by 48.38% versus no mulching.
- Treatment
- plastic-film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- crop yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 48.38e2
- Comparator
- no mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with no mulching, plastic-film mulching average increased crop yield, biomass yield, and root biomass by 48.38, 35.06, and 37.32%, respectively”
e1“maize yield”
e2“48.38, 35.06, and 37.32%”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching increased biomass yield by 35.06% versus no mulching.
- Treatment
- plastic-film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- biomass yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 35.06e2
- Comparator
- no mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with no mulching, plastic-film mulching average increased crop yield, biomass yield, and root biomass by 48.38, 35.06, and 37.32%, respectively”
e1“maize yield”
e2“35.06, and 37.32%”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching increased root biomass by 37.32% versus no mulching.
- Treatment
- plastic-film mulchinge0
- Outcome
- root biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 37.32%e2
- Comparator
- no mulchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with no mulching, plastic-film mulching average increased crop yield, biomass yield, and root biomass by 48.38, 35.06, and 37.32%, respectively”
e1“maize yield”
e2“37.32%”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching significantly improved CMI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plastic film-mulching significantly improved CMI”
e1“maize yield”
e2“Compared with no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching increased SOC content by 13.59%.
- Treatment
- plastic film-mulchinge2
- Outcome
- SOC contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13.59%e0
- Comparator
- no mulchinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased 13.59% SOC content, 7.47% SOC storage and 13.78% easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC) on average”
e1“maize yield”
e2“plastic film-mulching significantly improved CMI”
e3“Compared with no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching increased SOC storage by 7.47%.
- Treatment
- plastic film-mulchinge2
- Outcome
- SOC storagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.47%e0
- Comparator
- no mulchinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased 13.59% SOC content, 7.47% SOC storage and 13.78% easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC) on average”
e1“maize yield”
e2“plastic film-mulching significantly improved CMI”
e3“Compared with no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching increased EOC by 13.78%.
- Treatment
- plastic film-mulchinge2
- Outcome
- easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13.78%e0
- Comparator
- no mulchinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased 13.59% SOC content, 7.47% SOC storage and 13.78% easily oxidizable organic carbon (EOC) on average”
e1“maize yield”
e2“plastic film-mulching significantly improved CMI”
e3“Compared with no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Film mulching decreased other labile fractions.
- Treatment
- plastic film-mulchinge2
- Outcome
- other labile fractionse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- no mulchinge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but decreased other labile fractions”
e1“maize yield”
e2“plastic film-mulching significantly improved CMI”
e3“Compared with no mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Changing film mulching methods improved SOC sequestration and CMI.
- Treatment
- changing plastic film-mulching methodse0
- Outcome
- SOC sequestration and CMIe0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SOC sequestration and CMI were improved by changing plastic film-mulching methods”
e1“maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
S treatment had the best effect among four mulching methods.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S treatment had the best effect among the four mulching methods”
e1“maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend S treatment for sustainable semiarid agricultural development.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S treatment had the best effect among the four mulching methods, so it could be used as a reasonable film-mulching method for sustainable agricultural development in semiarid area”
e1“maize yield”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →mulching · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →mulching · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 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.