Abstract
Effects of different tillage management on the growth and yield of maize were studied from early June to September 2017. The experiment was set up with three tillage treatments: traditional shallow moldboard plow tillage with straw removal (MT), sub-soiling/ plow tillage /sub-soiling rotation with straw mulch (ST) and no-till/sub-soiling/no-till rotation with straw retention (NT). The soil compaction of different soil layers, plant height, chlorophyll content, above-ground biomass and yield were determined through the three tillage practices. Results showed that NT and ST treatments helped to reduce soil compaction, and had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared to the MT treatment. The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively. The size order of soil compaction was MT > NT > ST, and the soil compaction value was the maximum at 20 cm under MT treatment, which was 1007 kPa. Meanwhile, NT and ST also increased the plant above-ground biomass and yield of maize. Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively (P < 0.05). NT and ST tillage treatments are effective measures to improve structure of soil, contribute to plant growth and development and thereby increase in yield. Bangladesh J. Bot. 52(2): 451-458, 2023 (June) Special
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
No-till increased maize chlorophyll value in the early growth period by 31.8% compared with MT.
- Organ / stage
- early growth periode1
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll valuee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 31.8e1
- Comparator
- MTe1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e1“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till increased maize chlorophyll value in the early growth period by 24.6% compared with MT.
- Organ / stage
- early growth periode1
- Treatment
- STe1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll valuee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 24.6%e1
- Comparator
- MTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e1“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till increased maize plant height by 20.2% compared with MT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e1“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till increased maize plant height by 15.9% compared with MT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e1“The chlorophyll value in early growth period under NT and ST increased by 31.8 and 24.6%, respectively, and the plant height was increased by 20.2 and 15.9% compared with MT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
NT and ST treatments reduced soil compaction compared with MT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e2“Results showed that NT and ST treatments helped to reduce soil compaction, and had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared to the MT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
NT and ST treatments had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared with MT.
- Treatment
- NT and ST treatmentse2
- Outcome
- root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll contente2
- Direction
- positive effecte2
- Comparator
- MT treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e2“Results showed that NT and ST treatments helped to reduce soil compaction, and had a positive effect on maize root growth and development, plant height and chlorophyll content compared to the MT treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil compaction followed the order MT > NT > ST.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e3“The size order of soil compaction was MT > NT > ST”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil compaction at 20 cm was maximal under MT, at 1007 kPa.
- Treatment
- MT treatmente4
- Outcome
- soil compaction valuee4
- Direction
- maximume4
- Value
- 1007 kPae4
- Qualifier
- 20 cme4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e4“the soil compaction value was the maximum at 20 cm under MT treatment, which was 1007 kPa”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till significantly increased maize dry weight of plants by 24.3% compared with MT.
- Treatment
- NTe5
- Outcome
- dry weight of plantse5
- Direction
- significantly increasede5
- Value
- 24.3e5
- Comparator
- MT treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e5“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till significantly increased maize dry weight of plants by 15.7% compared with MT.
- Treatment
- STe5
- Outcome
- dry weight of plantse5
- Direction
- significantly increasede5
- Value
- 15.7%e5
- Comparator
- MT treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e5“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till significantly increased maize grain yield by 11.9% compared with MT.
- Treatment
- NTe5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- significantly increasede5
- Value
- 11.9e5
- Comparator
- MT treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e5“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till significantly increased maize grain yield by 14.9% compared with MT.
- Treatment
- STe5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- significantly increasede5
- Value
- 14.9%e5
- Comparator
- MT treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e5“Compared to MT treatment, the dry weight of plants for the NT and ST treatments significantly increased by 24.3 and 15.7%, respectively, and the grain yield significantly increased by 11.9 and 14.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
NT and ST tillage are effective measures to improve soil structure and increase maize yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays l.)”
e6“NT and ST tillage treatments are effective measures to improve structure of soil, contribute to plant growth and development and thereby increase in yield”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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 →organic · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →organic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
125 papers more in this group
See all 129 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 · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 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
- negative
- no effect
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.