Abstract
Forage maize is one of the most important feed crops for livestock production, and is mainly grown in northwest China. However, their growth is often stressed by limited soil water availability due to the arid climate. To provide more soil moisture, a high-efficiency tillage technique was required to make crops effectively use soil moisture in deep soil layers. Deep vertical rotary tillage is a promising choice for this purpose. In this study, a long-term (2020–2022) field experiment consisting of three treatments, i.e., traditional tillage (TT), deep rotary tillage (DT), and deep vertical rotary tillage (VRT), was carried out in semiarid areas of Loess Plateau, northwest China, to investigate the effects of VRT on soil water storage (SWS), phase crop evapotranspiration (ETc) during the pre- and post-flowering periods, dry matter accumulation, grain yields and the water use efficiency (WUE) of forage maize. The results showed that VRT significantly improved the absorption of soil moisture from deep layers, especially in dry years. During the pre-flowering period of a dry year (2020), VRT decreased SWS by 7.6%–10.0% in the 60–180 cm layer, and by 17.6%–18.5% in the 180–300 cm layer, respectively, compared to DT and TT. As a result, VRT increased ETc during the pre-flowering period by 6.1% and 9.2%, respectively. In wet years (2021 and 2022), VRT increased total ETc by 2.0%–7.9% in 2021, and by 10.1%–14.9% in 2022, respectively. On average, VRT increased the dry matter weight per plant by 1.0%–7.8%, grain yields by 2.4%–38.6%, biomass yields by 3.4%–16.2%, and WUE by 10.1%–30.0%, respectively. Particularly, the benefit of VRT for increasing yields and WUE was more noticeable in dry years. It can be concluded that VRT is a drought-tolerant and yield-boosting tillage technique that is suitable for rain-fed forage maize in semiarid areas of Loess Plateau, northwest China.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
VRT improved uptake of deep soil moisture, particularly in dry years.
- Taxon
- forage maizet0
- Treatment
- VRTe0
- Outcome
- absorption of soil moisture from deep layerse0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- especially in dry yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“VRT significantly improved the absorption of soil moisture from deep layers, especially in dry years”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
In the 2020 pre-flowering period VRT lowered 60–180 cm soil water storage by 7.6%–10.0% relative to DT and TT.
Verbatim
e0“VRT decreased SWS by 7.6%–10.0% in the 60–180 cm layer, and by 17.6%–18.5% in the 180–300 cm layer, respectively, compared to DT and TT”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT lowered 180–300 cm soil water storage by 17.6%–18.5% relative to DT and TT.
Verbatim
e0“VRT decreased SWS by 7.6%–10.0% in the 60–180 cm layer, and by 17.6%–18.5% in the 180–300 cm layer, respectively, compared to DT and TT”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased pre-flowering ETc by 6.1% and 9.2% relative to the two comparisons.
- Taxon
- Forage Maizet0
- Treatment
- VRTe0
- Outcome
- ETce0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.1% and 9.2%e0
- Qualifier
- pre-flowering periode0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“VRT increased ETc during the pre-flowering period by 6.1% and 9.2%, respectively”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased total ETc by 2.0%–7.9% in 2021.
- Taxon
- Forage Maizet0
- Treatment
- VRTe0
- Outcome
- total ETce0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.0%–7.9%e0
- Qualifier
- 2021e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“VRT increased total ETc by 2.0%–7.9% in 2021, and by 10.1%–14.9% in 2022”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased total ETc by 10.1%–14.9% in 2022.
- Taxon
- Forage Maizet0
- Treatment
- VRTe0
- Outcome
- total ETce0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10.1%–14.9%e0
- Qualifier
- 2022e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“VRT increased total ETc by 2.0%–7.9% in 2021, and by 10.1%–14.9% in 2022”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased dry matter weight per plant by 1.0%–7.8% on average.
- Taxon
- Forage Maizet0
- Treatment
- VRTe0
- Outcome
- dry matter weight per plante0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.0%–7.8%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“VRT increased the dry matter weight per plant by 1.0%–7.8%”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased grain yield by 2.4%–38.6% on average.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“VRT increased the dry matter weight per plant by 1.0%–7.8%, grain yields by 2.4%–38.6%”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased biomass yield by 3.4%–16.2% on average.
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“biomass yields by 3.4%–16.2%”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT increased WUE by 10.1%–30.0% on average.
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“WUE by 10.1%–30.0%”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VRT yield and WUE benefits were more pronounced in dry years.
Verbatim
e0“the benefit of VRT for increasing yields and WUE was more noticeable in dry years”
t0“Forage Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude VRT is suitable for rain-fed forage maize in the semiarid Loess Plateau.
Verbatim
e0“VRT is a drought-tolerant and yield-boosting tillage technique that is suitable for rain-fed forage maize in semiarid areas of Loess Plateau, northwest China”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 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 →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
- positive
- positive
- 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.