Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of different tillage structures on soil physical properties, soil chemical properties, maize root morphological and physiological characteristics, and yield. Four tillage structures were designed. Soil tillage plays a prominent role in agricultural sustainability. The different tillage layer structures affected soil physical properties. An enhancement in the optimal tillage layer structure improved soil structure. The MJ tillage layer structure created an improved soil structure by regulating the soil physical properties so that the soil compaction and soil bulk density would be beneficial for crop growth, increase soil water content, and adjust the soil phrase R value and GSSI. Soil nutrients are significantly affected by soil depth, with the exception of available potassium. However, soil nutrients are influenced by different tillage layer structures with soil depth. Soil nutrient responses with depth are different for MJ layer treatment compared with other tillage layer structures. Soil organic matter (SOM) is affected with an increase in depth and is significantly influenced by different tillage layer structures, except at 20–30 cm soil depth. MJ treatment increased by 10–20% compared with other tillage layer structures. In addition, QS treatment enhanced the increased pH value in soil profile compared to others. The root morphology characteristics, including root length, root ProjArea, root SurfArea, root AvgDiam, and root volume, were affected by years, depth, and the tillage layer structures. The MJ tillage layer structure enhanced root growth by improving tillage soil structure and increasing soil air and water compared with other tillage layer treatments. Specifically, the MJ layer structure significantly increased root length and root volume via deep tillage. However, the differences in root physiological properties were not significant among treatments. The root dry weight decreased with an increase in soil depth. Most of the roots were mainly distributed in a 0–40 cm soil layer. The MJ treatment enhanced the increase in root dry weight compared with others by breaking the tillage pan layer. Among the different tillage layer structures, the difference in root dry weight was smaller with an increase in soil depth. Moreover, the MJ treatment significantly improved maize yield compared with others. The yield was increased by 14.2% compared to others under MJ treatment via improvements in the soil environment. In addition, the correlation relationship was different among yield and root morphology traits, root physiology traits, soil nutrients, and soil physical traits. So, our results showed that the MJ tillage layer structure is the best tillage structure for increasing maize yield by enhancing soil nutrients, improving the soil environment and root qualities.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage layers affected soil physical properties.
- Outcome
- soil physical propertiese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The different tillage layer structures affected soil physical properties”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ improved soil structure and increased soil water content.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The MJ tillage layer structure created an improved soil structure by regulating the soil physical properties so that the soil compaction and soil bulk density would be beneficial for crop growth, increase soil water content, and adjust the soil phrase R value and GSSI”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil nutrients varied significantly with soil depth except available potassium.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil nutrients are significantly affected by soil depth, with the exception of available potassium”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil nutrients differed by tillage structure and depth.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil nutrients are influenced by different tillage layer structures with soil depth”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ gave a different depth response in soil nutrients.
- Treatment
- MJ layer treatmente0
- Outcome
- Soil nutrient responsese0
- Direction
- differente0
- Comparator
- other tillage layer structurese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil nutrient responses with depth are different for MJ layer treatment compared with other tillage layer structures”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic matter varied with depth and tillage, except at 20–30 cm.
- Treatment
- different tillage layer structurese0
- Outcome
- Soil organic mattere0
- Setting
- 20–30 cm soil depthe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil organic matter (SOM) is affected with an increase in depth and is significantly influenced by different tillage layer structures, except at 20–30 cm soil depth”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ increased soil organic matter by 10–20% against other structures.
- Treatment
- MJ treatmente0
- Outcome
- Soil organic mattere1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10–20%e0
- Comparator
- other tillage layer structurese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MJ treatment increased by 10–20% compared with other tillage layer structures”
e1“Soil organic matter (SOM) is affected with an increase in depth and is significantly influenced by different tillage layer structures, except at 20–30 cm soil depth”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
QS raised soil profile pH relative to other treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“QS treatment enhanced the increased pH value in soil profile compared to others”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root morphology varied with year, depth and tillage structure.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root morphology characteristics, including root length, root ProjArea, root SurfArea, root AvgDiam, and root volume, were affected by years, depth, and the tillage layer structures”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ enhanced root growth against other tillage layers.
- Treatment
- MJ tillage layer structuree0
- Outcome
- root growthe0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- other tillage layer treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The MJ tillage layer structure enhanced root growth by improving tillage soil structure and increasing soil air and water compared with other tillage layer treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ significantly increased root length and root volume.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the MJ layer structure significantly increased root length and root volume via deep tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root physiological properties did not differ significantly among treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences in root physiological properties were not significant among treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root dry weight declined with soil depth.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root dry weight decreased with an increase in soil depth”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Most roots were at 0–40 cm depth.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most of the roots were mainly distributed in a 0–40 cm soil layer”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ enhanced root dry weight versus other treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The MJ treatment enhanced the increase in root dry weight compared with others by breaking the tillage pan layer”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences in root dry weight among tillage layers narrowed with depth.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different tillage layer structures, the difference in root dry weight was smaller with an increase in soil depth”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
MJ significantly improved maize yield, by 14.2% against other structures.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield was increased by 14.2% compared to others under MJ treatment via improvements in the soil environment”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Correlations between yield and root and soil traits differed.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the correlation relationship was different among yield and root morphology traits, root physiology traits, soil nutrients, and soil physical traits”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify MJ as the best structure for maize yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the MJ tillage layer structure is the best tillage structure for increasing maize yield”
The same questions in other papers
(-)-methyl jasmonate · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →(-)-methyl jasmonate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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
- positive
- positive
- positive
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
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.