Claim · model-written summary
Tillage had little impact on wheat yields.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- Tillagee0
- Outcome
- wheat yieldse0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat and Sorghum”
e0“Tillage had little impact on wheat yields”
Title
Agronomic and Economic Impacts of Tillage and Rotation on Wheat and Sorghum
A. J. Schlegel; K. C. Dhuyvetter; C. R. Thompson; et al. jpa 1999. doi:10.2134/jpa1999.0629
Other claims from this paper (12)
- Intervention effect Precipitation capture during fallow tended to be greater with WSF than with WF.
- Intervention effect Wheat yields were similar for WSF and WF.
- Intervention effect Continuous wheat (WW) yields were about 45% less.
- Intervention effect Sorghum yields were 23% greater with no-tillage than with reduced tillage.
- Observation Water use efficiency was greater for sorghum than for wheat.
- Intervention effect No-tillage increased sorghum water use efficiency by 25% compared with reduced tillage.
- Observation The quantity of wheat straw was similar for WF and WSF.
- Intervention effect Production costs were $14 to 19/acre greater with no-tillage than reduced tillage for wheat, mainly for weed control.
- Intervention effect Production costs were similar for no-tillage and reduced tillage sorghum.
- Intervention effect Economic returns were similar for WF‐RT, WSF‐RT and WSF‐NT at about $22 to 27/acre.
- Intervention effect Economic returns for WF‐NT and WW‐NT were lower, at $10 to 13/acre, than for the reduced-tillage and WSF‐NT systems.
- Observation Sorghum yields of 55 to 60 bu/acre were required before WSF was as profitable as WF.