Paper · 2025 · Agronomy Science and Biotechnology

Productivity and phytotechnical parameters of corn grown on different cover plants

João Guilherme Ribeiro Ferreira; Helio Souza Junior; Maurício Ursi Ventura; et al.

11
claims
15
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Brazilian agriculture faces the challenge of adopting sustainable practices that reduce costs and mitigate environmental impacts. The use of cover crops stands out as an efficient alternative to improve soil conditions and increase the productivity of subsequent crops. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different cover crops on the productivity and phytotechnical characteristics of corn. The experiment was carried out in a completely randomized design, with four replicates, considering the following treatments: sorghum (Sorghum sp.), brachiaria (Brachiaria ruziziensis), crotalaria (Crotalaria juncea), fallow and no cover. The production of green mass of the covers, plant height, stem diameter, number of grains per ear, 1000-grain weight and productivity were evaluated. Sorghum showed the highest biomass production (96,498.5 kg ha⁻¹), while fallow was the least efficient. Cover crops provided better corn performance in height, number of leaves, stalk diameter, productivity and thousand-grain weight, compared to areas without cover or fallow. Sunn hemp stood out for biological nitrogen fixation, while brachiaria and sorghum reduced weed infestation and improved water retention. In fallow or uncovered areas, corn had a stalk diameter up to 6.42 mm smaller and productivity reduced by up to 3,827.47 kg ha⁻¹, compared to the best treatments. The results demonstrate the benefits of cover crops, promoting sustainable management and increasing corn productivity and resilience, especially in regions with edaphoclimatic challenges.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum cover crop showed the highest biomass production, 96,498.5 kg ha-1.

Taxon
SorghumSorghume0
Outcome
biomass productione0
Direction
higheste0
Value
96,498.5 kg ha⁻¹e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum showed the highest biomass production (96,498.5 kg ha⁻¹)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–853 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fallow was the least efficient in biomass production among the cover treatments.

Outcome
least efficiente0
Direction
least efficiente0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“fallow was the least efficient”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–891 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crops gave better corn height, number of leaves and stalk diameter than areas without cover or fallow.

Treatment
Cover cropse0
Outcome
height, number of leaves, stalk diametere0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
areas without cover or fallowe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cover crops provided better corn performance in height, number of leaves, stalk diameter, productivity and thousand-grain weight, compared to areas without cover or fallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 893–1064 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crops gave better corn productivity and thousand-grain weight than areas without cover or fallow.

Treatment
Cover cropse0
Outcome
productivity and thousand-grain weighte0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
areas without cover or fallowe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cover crops provided better corn performance in height, number of leaves, stalk diameter, productivity and thousand-grain weight, compared to areas without cover or fallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 893–1064 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sunn hemp stood out for biological nitrogen fixation.

Taxon
Sunn hempCrotalaria junceae0
Outcome
biological nitrogen fixatione0
Direction
stood oute0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Crotalaria juncea
Crotalaria juncea · TaxonA16898 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sunn hemp stood out for biological nitrogen fixation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1066–1118 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Brachiaria reduced weed infestation.

Treatment
brachiariae0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed infestatione0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“brachiaria and sorghum reduced weed infestation and improved water retention”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1202 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum reduced weed infestation.

Treatment
sorghume0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed infestatione0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“brachiaria and sorghum reduced weed infestation and improved water retention”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1202 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Brachiaria improved water retention.

Treatment
brachiariae0
Outcome
water retentione0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“brachiaria and sorghum reduced weed infestation and improved water retention”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1202 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum improved water retention.

Treatment
sorghume0
Outcome
water retentione0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“brachiaria and sorghum reduced weed infestation and improved water retention”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1202 · show in text ↑
t0

“corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In fallow or uncovered areas corn stalk diameter was up to 6.42 mm smaller than in the best treatments.

Treatment
fallow or uncovered arease0
Outcome
stalk diametere0
Direction
smallere0
Value
up to 6.42 mme0
Comparator
the best treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In fallow or uncovered areas, corn had a stalk diameter up to 6.42 mm smaller and productivity reduced by up to 3,827.47 kg ha⁻¹, compared to the best treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1365 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In fallow or uncovered areas corn productivity was reduced by up to 3,827.47 kg ha-1 compared with the best treatments.

Treatment
fallow or uncovered arease0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
reducede0
Value
up to 3,827.47 kg ha⁻¹e0
Comparator
the best treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In fallow or uncovered areas, corn had a stalk diameter up to 6.42 mm smaller and productivity reduced by up to 3,827.47 kg ha⁻¹, compared to the best treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1365 · show in text ↑

Sorghum · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Sorghum · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

cover crop · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

28 papers: 16 positive, 12 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

24 papers more in this group

See all 28 papers →

rotation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

47 papers: 35 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

43 papers more in this group

See all 47 papers →

cover crop · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

222 papers: 104 positive, 118 negative or no effect

103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction · 14 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

218 papers more in this group

See all 222 papers →

rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

322 papers: 254 positive, 68 negative or no effect

67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 254 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

318 papers more in this group

See all 322 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.