Abstract
The experiment was conducted in Al-Abbasi sub-district, Al-Hawija district, about 72.6 km from Kirkuk center (latitude N35.270768, longitude E43.630299) during the spring season of 2025. The study investigated the effect of three factors on maize (Zea mays L.) traits, including mechanization indicators, yield, and its components. The factors were: tillage system (no-tillage and conventional tillage), three forward speeds (6.42, 7.23, and 8.15 km·h⁻¹), and two maize varieties ( Toro and Royal). Twelve treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with a split-split plot arrangement and three replications. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at 0.05 probability was used to compare means. Studied traits included: number of ears per plant, number of rows per ear, number of kernels per row, number of kernels per ear, 300-kernel weight, and emergence percentage. Results indicated that mechanization traits were significantly influenced by the first two factors, while other traits were affected by all factors. The interaction between conventional tillage and 8.15 km·h⁻¹ speed produced the highest significant values for field emergence percentage, number of rows per ear, 300-kernel weight, and ear weight. The speed of 8.15 km·h⁻¹ excelled in number of rows per ear, whereas 6.42 km·h⁻¹ resulted in the highest number of kernels per row. The Toro variety showed superior performance in most yield traits, except 300-kernel weight, which was higher in the Royal variety. Conventional tillage × Toro yielded the best values for ears per plant, kernels per row, and kernels per ear, while conventional tillage × Royal achieved the highest 300-kernel weight. No-tillage × Toro gave the highest number of rows per ear, and 6.42 km·h⁻¹ × Toro produced the best number of kernels per row and per ear.Keywords: varieties, forward speed, surface farming, conventional farming.
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
Mechanization traits were significantly influenced by tillage and speed.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mechanization traits were significantly influenced by the first two factors, while other traits were affected by all factors.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Other traits were affected by tillage, speed and variety.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mechanization traits were significantly influenced by the first two factors, while other traits were affected by all factors.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage at 8.15 km·h⁻¹ gave the highest emergence, ear rows, kernel weight and ear weight.
- Treatment
- conventional tillage and 8.15 km·h⁻¹ speede0
- Outcome
- field emergence percentage, number of rows per ear, 300-kernel weight, and ear weighte0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The interaction between conventional tillage and 8.15 km·h⁻¹ speed produced the highest significant values for field emergence percentage, number of rows per ear, 300-kernel weight, and ear weight.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 8.15 km·h⁻¹, row number per ear was greatest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The speed of 8.15 km·h⁻¹ excelled in number of rows per ear”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 6.42 km·h⁻¹, kernel number per row was highest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6.42 km·h⁻¹ resulted in the highest number of kernels per row.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Toro was superior for most yield traits.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The Toro variety showed superior performance in most yield traits”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Royal had higher 300-kernel weight.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“300-kernel weight, which was higher in the Royal variety.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage with Toro gave the best ears per plant, kernels per row and kernels per ear.
- Treatment
- Conventional tillage × Toroe0
- Outcome
- ears per plant, kernels per row, and kernels per eare0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage × Toro yielded the best values for ears per plant, kernels per row, and kernels per ear”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage with Royal gave the highest 300-kernel weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional tillage × Royal achieved the highest 300-kernel weight.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage with Toro gave the highest rows per ear.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No-tillage × Toro gave the highest number of rows per ear”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 6.42 km·h⁻¹, Toro gave the best kernel numbers per row and ear.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6.42 km·h⁻¹ × Toro produced the best number of kernels per row and per ear.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other 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.