Abstract
Spring maize cultivation in semi-humid, drought-prone regions like Northwest China is severely constrained by water scarcity, which reduces yields and resource use efficiency. While subsoiling tillage (ST) and rain-collecting micro-ridge-furrow sowing (RS) are promising strategies for alleviating water stress and improving resource capture, the synergistic effects of these practices on soil water dynamics and crop water productivity (WPc) remain poorly understood, hindering the development of optimized water management strategies. A two-year field experiment (2022–2023) compared two tillage methods--conventional tillage (CT) and ST--and two sowing patterns--flat sowing (FS) and RS, forming four treatments: CT+FS, CT+RS, ST+FS, and ST+RS. Results demonstrated that ST+RS significantly enhanced soil water storage (0–200 cm), and promoted root development in shallow (0–20 cm) and middle (20–60 cm) soil layers. These improvements resulted in increases in the leaf area index (LAI), chlorophyll content (SPAD value), and dry matter accumulation. Critically, ST+RS increased two-year average grain yield (GY) by 7–24 %, with the number of grains per ear (GPE) rising by 2–6 % and the 100-grain weight (100-GW) by 3–10 %. WPc and nitrogen uptake efficiency (UPE N ) were improved by 8–26 % and 13–38 %, respectively. GY, GPE, 100–GW, were strongly correlated with root traits. The integrated application of ST and RS effectively conserved soil water conservation, increased GY, optimized WPc, and raised economic benefit. Therefore, the adoption of ST+RS is recommended to enhance productivity and resilience in spring maize systems within semi-humid, drought-prone regions.
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
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS enhanced soil water storage.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST+RS significantly enhanced soil water storage (0–200 cm)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS promoted maize root development in shallow and middle soil layers.
- Treatment
- ST+RSe1
- Outcome
- root developmente0
- Direction
- promotede0
- Qualifier
- shallow (0–20 cm) and middle (20–60 cm) soil layerse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“promoted root development in shallow (0–20 cm) and middle (20–60 cm) soil layers”
e1“Results demonstrated that ST+RS significantly enhanced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS increased leaf area index, chlorophyll content and dry matter accumulation.
- Treatment
- ST+RSe1
- Outcome
- leaf area index (LAI), chlorophyll content (SPAD value), and dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- increasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increases in the leaf area index (LAI), chlorophyll content (SPAD value), and dry matter accumulation”
e1“Results demonstrated that ST+RS significantly enhanced”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS increased average grain yield by 7–24%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ST+RS increased two-year average grain yield (GY) by 7–24 %”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS raised grains per ear by 2–6%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the number of grains per ear (GPE) rising by 2–6 %”
e1“Critically, ST+RS increased”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS raised 100-grain weight by 3–10%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 100-grain weight (100-GW) by 3–10 %”
e1“Critically, ST+RS increased”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS improved crop water productivity by 8–26%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WPc and nitrogen uptake efficiency (UPE N ) were improved by 8–26 % and 13–38 %, respectively.”
e1“Critically, ST+RS increased”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ST+RS improved nitrogen uptake efficiency by 13–38%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WPc and nitrogen uptake efficiency (UPE N ) were improved by 8–26 % and 13–38 %, respectively.”
e1“Critically, ST+RS increased”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield, grains per ear and 100-grain weight were strongly correlated with root traits.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GY, GPE, 100–GW, were strongly correlated with root traits.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated ST and RS raised economic benefit.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The integrated application of ST and RS effectively conserved soil water conservation, increased GY, optimized WPc, and raised economic benefit.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend ST+RS for spring maize productivity and resilience.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, the adoption of ST+RS is recommended to enhance productivity and resilience in spring maize systems within semi-humid, drought-prone regions.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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 · 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
- no effect
- negative
- 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.