Abstract
In Indonesia, corn is an important commodity that serves as the second source of carbohydrates after rice, whose productivity is influenced by management practices applied during cultivation. This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn. This research was arranged in a single-factor Randomized Complete Block Design, with different agriculture management practices as treatments, consisting of TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza), TI2 = Farmers’ Practices (Furrow Irrigation) + Mycorrhiza, and TI3 = Farmers’ practices (Furrow Irrigation). The data observed were analyzed using Analysis of Variance and followed by the Post Hoc Tukey’s HSD at α= 5%. The results showed that the TI1 produced significantly higher plant height, stem diameter, leaf dry weight, weight of cob with cornhusk and kernel dry weight, and effectively suppressed weed growth compared to TI2 and TI3. TI1 produced a significantly higher number of leaves, root dry weight, and total dry weight compared to TI3, but not significantly different compared to TI2. TI1 produced not significantly different stem dry weight and harvest index compared to TI2 and TI3. The kernel dry weight per plant observed in TI1 was 157.63 g, which was 14.22% and 22.91% higher than in TI2 and TI3, respectively. Based on the coefficient correlation and path analysis, the number of leaves, plant height, and total dry weight should be considered as important plant growth variables to produce high kernel dry weight.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 (best practices with drip irrigation, rice husk and mycorrhiza) significantly increased plant height, stem diameter and leaf dry weight of corn compared with TI2 and TI3.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)e1
- Outcome
- plant height, stem diameter, leaf dry weighte2
- Direction
- significantly highere2
- Comparator
- TI2 and TI3e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)”
e2“TI1 produced significantly higher plant height, stem diameter, leaf dry weight, weight of cob with cornhusk and kernel dry weight, and effectively suppressed weed growth compared to TI2 and TI3”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 significantly increased the weight of cob with cornhusk and kernel dry weight of corn compared with TI2 and TI3.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)e1
- Outcome
- weight of cob with cornhusk and kernel dry weighte2
- Direction
- significantly highere2
- Comparator
- TI2 and TI3e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)”
e2“TI1 produced significantly higher plant height, stem diameter, leaf dry weight, weight of cob with cornhusk and kernel dry weight, and effectively suppressed weed growth compared to TI2 and TI3”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 effectively suppressed weed growth in corn compared with TI2 and TI3.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)e1
- Outcome
- weed growthe2
- Direction
- effectively suppressede2
- Comparator
- TI2 and TI3e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)”
e2“TI1 produced significantly higher plant height, stem diameter, leaf dry weight, weight of cob with cornhusk and kernel dry weight, and effectively suppressed weed growth compared to TI2 and TI3”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 significantly increased the number of leaves, root dry weight and total dry weight of corn compared with TI3.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)e1
- Outcome
- number of leaves, root dry weight, and total dry weighte3
- Direction
- significantly highere3
- Comparator
- TI3e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)”
e3“TI1 produced a significantly higher number of leaves, root dry weight, and total dry weight compared to TI3, but not significantly different compared to TI2”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 did not significantly differ from TI2 in number of leaves, root dry weight and total dry weight of corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)e1
- Outcome
- number of leaves, root dry weight, and total dry weighte3
- Direction
- not significantly differente3
- Comparator
- TI2e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)”
e3“TI1 produced a significantly higher number of leaves, root dry weight, and total dry weight compared to TI3, but not significantly different compared to TI2”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 did not significantly differ from TI2 or TI3 in stem dry weight and harvest index of corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)e1
- Outcome
- stem dry weight and harvest indexe4
- Direction
- not significantly differente4
- Comparator
- TI2 and TI3e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“TI1 = Best Practices (Drip Irrigation + Rice Husk + Mycorrhiza)”
e4“TI1 produced not significantly different stem dry weight and harvest index compared to TI2 and TI3”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 kernel dry weight per plant was 14.22% higher than TI2.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- TI1e5
- Outcome
- kernel dry weight per plante5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 14.22%e5
- Qualifier
- 157.63 ge5
- Comparator
- TI2e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The kernel dry weight per plant observed in TI1 was 157.63 g, which was 14.22% and 22.91% higher than in TI2 and TI3, respectively”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
TI1 kernel dry weight per plant was 22.91% higher than TI3.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- TI1e5
- Outcome
- kernel dry weight per plante5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 22.91%e5
- Qualifier
- 157.63 ge5
- Comparator
- TI3e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The kernel dry weight per plant observed in TI1 was 157.63 g, which was 14.22% and 22.91% higher than in TI2 and TI3, respectively”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Number of leaves, plant height and total dry weight should be considered as important plant growth variables for high kernel dry weight of corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- important plant growth variablese6
- Qualifier
- Based on the coefficient correlation and path analysise6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Based on the coefficient correlation and path analysis, the number of leaves, plant height, and total dry weight should be considered as important plant growth variables to produce high kernel dry weight”
e0“This research aimed to determine the effects of different management practices on the growth and yield of corn”
The same questions in other papers
Oryza sativa · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →Oryza sativa · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →Oryza sativa · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mycorrhiza · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →mycorrhiza · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
irrigation · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →mycorrhiza · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
168 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
184 papers more in this group
See all 188 papers →irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.