Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during November-May 1984 and 1985 to evaluate the effect of row spacing, seed rate, sowing method and weed control measures on the uptake of nutrients by different categories of weeds and the availability of nutrients to the crop. Closer row spacing, higher seed rate and cross-sowing significantly decreased the nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedge, compared with wider row spacing, normal seed rate and one-direction sowing, and resulted in higher nutrient uptake by the crop (.)
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Closer row spacing significantly reduced nutrient removal by grass, broad-leaf and sedge weeds compared with wider spacing.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- Closer row spacinge0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedgee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- wider row spacinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Closer row spacing, higher seed rate and cross-sowing significantly decreased the nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedge, compared with wider row spacing, normal seed rate and one-direction sowing”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher seed rate significantly reduced nutrient removal by weeds compared with normal seed rate.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- higher seed ratee0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedgee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- normal seed ratee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher seed rate and cross-sowing significantly decreased the nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedge, compared with wider row spacing, normal seed rate and one-direction sowing”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Cross-sowing significantly reduced nutrient removal by weeds compared with one-direction sowing.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- cross-sowinge0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedgee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- one-direction sowinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cross-sowing significantly decreased the nutrient removal by grass and broad-leaf weeds, as well as by a sedge, compared with wider row spacing, normal seed rate and one-direction sowing”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The planting practices resulted in higher crop nutrient uptake.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Closer row spacing, higher seed rate and cross-sowinge0
- Outcome
- nutrient uptake by the crope1
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Closer row spacing, higher seed rate and cross-sowing”
e1“resulted in higher nutrient uptake by the crop”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
density · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →density · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 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.