Abstract
Two field experiments in southern Australia investigated a farming system of over-cropping wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) into established lucerne (Medicago sativa subsp. L.) varieties of different winter activity ratings. The study was completed at Roseworthy, South Australia, and Katanning, Western Australia, between August 2000 and May 2003 in seasons receiving below average and average rainfall. Comparative lucerne persistence and biomass, wheat biomass, grain yield and protein contents, and soil water contents were measured. Wheat grain yield was reduced by 13–63% by over-cropping lucerne compared with wheat monoculture. Winter-dormant lucerne (winter activity Classes 0.5 and 2) reduced the yield penalty compared with winter-active varieties (Classes 6 and 10) in 2 of the 4 evaluations. The positive response to applying N at sowing in the second year of over-cropping wheat at Katanning was greatest in the most winter-dormant lucerne treatment (winter activity 0.5). Soil water contents were similar under the lucerne/wheat over-cropping and lucerne monoculture treatments irrespective of lucerne winter activity. Deficits of up to 43 mm at Roseworthy and 88 mm at Katanning were measured in the 0–200-cm soil profile at the start of the third summer of the study. The study shows that it can be more efficient in terms of land area to over-crop wheat into lucerne than to grow monocultures on separate parcels of land akin to phase farming. The improved productivity of over-cropping is associated with the separation of growth patterns of winter wheat and summer-active lucerne. This farming system offers great potential for improving sustainability and productivity in southern Australian cropping rotations.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Over-cropping lucerne reduced wheat grain yield by 13–63% compared with wheat monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume4 - Treatment
- over-cropping lucernee4
- Outcome
- Wheat grain yielde4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Value
- 13–63%e4
- Comparator
- wheat monoculturee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Wheat grain yield was reduced by 13–63% by over-cropping lucerne compared with wheat monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter-dormant lucerne reduced the wheat yield penalty compared with winter-active varieties in 2 of the 4 evaluations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Material
- winter activity Classes 0.5 and 2e5
- Treatment
- Winter-dormant lucernee5
- Outcome
- yield penaltye5
- Direction
- reducede5
- Qualifier
- in 2 of the 4 evaluationse5
- Comparator
- winter-active varietiese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Wheat grain yield was reduced by 13–63% by over-cropping lucerne compared with wheat monoculture”
e5“Winter-dormant lucerne (winter activity Classes 0.5 and 2) reduced the yield penalty compared with winter-active varieties (Classes 6 and 10) in 2 of the 4 evaluations”
Claim · model-written summary
The positive response to applying N at sowing in the second year of over-cropping wheat at Katanning was greatest with the most winter-dormant lucerne.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Material
- winter activity 0.5e6
- Treatment
- applying N at sowinge6
- Outcome
- positive response to applying N at sowinge6
- Direction
- greateste6
- Setting
- Katanninge6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“The positive response to applying N at sowing in the second year of over-cropping wheat at Katanning was greatest in the most winter-dormant lucerne treatment (winter activity 0.5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water contents were similar under lucerne/wheat over-cropping and lucerne monoculture, irrespective of lucerne winter activity.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume7
- Treatment
- over-croppinge7
- Outcome
- Soil water contentse7
- Direction
- similare7
- Qualifier
- irrespective of lucerne winter activitye7
- Comparator
- lucerne monoculturee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Soil water contents were similar under the lucerne/wheat over-cropping and lucerne monoculture treatments irrespective of lucerne winter activity”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water deficit at Roseworthy reached up to 43 mm in the 0–200-cm profile at the start of the third summer.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Outcome
- Deficitse1
- Value
- up to 43 mme1
- Qualifier
- in the 0–200-cm soil profilee1
- Setting
- Roseworthye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Deficits of up to 43 mm at Roseworthy and 88 mm at Katanning were measured in the 0–200-cm soil profile at the start of the third summer of the study”
e4“Wheat grain yield was reduced by 13–63% by over-cropping lucerne compared with wheat monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water deficit at Katanning reached 88 mm in the 0–200-cm profile at the start of the third summer.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Outcome
- Deficitse1
- Value
- 88 mme1
- Qualifier
- in the 0–200-cm soil profilee1
- Setting
- Katanninge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Deficits of up to 43 mm at Roseworthy and 88 mm at Katanning were measured in the 0–200-cm soil profile at the start of the third summer of the study”
e4“Wheat grain yield was reduced by 13–63% by over-cropping lucerne compared with wheat monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Over-cropping wheat into lucerne may be more efficient in land area than monocultures on separate parcels, akin to phase farming.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- over-crop wheat into lucernee1
- Outcome
- efficient in terms of land areae1
- Direction
- more efficiente1
- Comparator
- monocultures on separate parcelse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The study shows that it can be more efficient in terms of land area to over-crop wheat into lucerne than to grow monocultures on separate parcels of land akin to phase farming”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors associate the improved productivity of over-cropping with the separation of growth patterns of winter wheat and summer-active lucerne.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- improved productivity of over-croppinge1
- Qualifier
- separation of growth patterns of winter wheat and summer-active lucernee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The improved productivity of over-cropping is associated with the separation of growth patterns of winter wheat and summer-active lucerne”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors state that over-cropping wheat into lucerne offers great potential for improving sustainability and productivity in southern Australian cropping rotations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- sustainability and productivity in southern Australian cropping rotationse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two field experiments in southern Australia investigated a farming system of over-cropping wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) into established lucerne”
e2“This farming system offers great potential for improving sustainability and productivity in southern Australian cropping rotations”
The same questions in other papers
Medicago sativa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 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.