Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during the fall season 2022 to study the Conservation agriculure system and the role of Treatment foliar sprays (phosphorus and seaweed) in improve growth and productivity of maize. The Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) within the order of split plots including three replicates was used. The experiment included two levels of Conservation agriculture (Zero Tillage or Tillage) symbolized by T0, T1, that represented the main plots, while the subplots included the foliar spray six mixtures of liquid phosphorus and seaweed: without spray (control), Full recommendation of di ammonium phosphate (DAP) symbolized (P1), Half-recommended di ammonium phosphate (DAP), with spraying liquid phosphorous at concentration of 100 ml/L symbolized (P2), Half-recommended di ammonium phosphate (DAP) with spraying liquid phosphorous at concentration of 200 ml/L symbolized (P3), Half recommended di ammonium phosphate (DAP) with spraying liquid phosphorus at concentration of 100 ml/L with seaweed at concentration of 50 ml/L symbolized (P4), and Half-recommended di ammonium phosphate (DAP) with liquid full-recommendation with 200 ml/L of with seaweed at concentration of 100 ml/L symbolized (P5). Results showed, Conservation agriculture negatively affected the vegetative growth characteristics, reduced Plant height and Leafy area, Crop growth rate Also, the characteristics of productivity were negatively affected, and the 500-Grains weight, decreased gave 77.81(g), and the Grain yield 3.18 (Mega ha). Foliar spraying improved and increased the growth characteristics and productivity of Maize, gave higher treatment (P5) for plant height and leaf area as well as the highest productivity. Conclude Conservation agriculture of Maize did not succeed in central Iraq and affected negatively in reducing the growth and productivity characteristics, and that foliar spraying led to improving and increasing the growth and productivity of Maize.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture reduced maize plant height and leaf area.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservation agriculture negatively affected the vegetative growth characteristics, reduced Plant height and Leafy area”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture reduced maize crop growth rate.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservation agriculture negatively affected the vegetative growth characteristics, reduced Plant height and Leafy area, Crop growth rate”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture decreased maize 500 grain weight to 77.81 g.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“500-Grains weight, decreased gave 77.81(g)”
t0“Maize”
e1“Conservation agriculture negatively affected the vegetative growth characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture decreased maize grain yield to 3.18 Mega ha.
- Treatment
- Conservation agriculturee1
- Outcome
- Grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 3.18 (Mega ha)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield 3.18 (Mega ha)”
e1“Conservation agriculture negatively affected the vegetative growth characteristics”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar spraying increased maize growth characteristics and productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar spraying improved and increased the growth characteristics and productivity of Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
P5 gave the highest maize plant height and leaf area.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher treatment (P5) for plant height and leaf area as well as the highest productivity”
e1“Half-recommended di ammonium phosphate (DAP) with liquid full-recommendation with 200 ml/L of with seaweed at concentration of 100 ml/L symbolized (P5)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
P5 gave the highest maize productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher treatment (P5) for plant height and leaf area as well as the highest productivity”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded conservation agriculture did not succeed for maize in central Iraq.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservation agriculture of Maize did not succeed in central Iraq”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 196 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 papers →application · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
574 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction · 12 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
625 papers more in this group
See all 629 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- 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.