Abstract
Use of conservation tillage has improved sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] grain yield 10 to 20% in ungrazed wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–fallow–sorghum production systems. Our objective in this 2‐yr field study was to develop tillage guidelines for systems where the wheat was grazed. Grazing duration on winter wheat and tillage during the fallow period preceding dryland grain sorghum were treatments on Pullman clay loam (Torrertic Paleustoll). Grazing increased surface soil compaction and reduced wheat residues. Surface soil (0–5 cm) penetration resistance was 0.36, 0.52, 0.75, and 0.92 Mpa, and wheat residue in 1996 was 6.0, 4.8, 3.5, and 1.2 Mg ha for ungrazed and early, normal, and late cattle removal dates, respectively. As a result, sorghum grain yield in 1996, an exceptionally wet season, was 7.9, 7.5, 7.0, and 3.8 Mg ha −1 , respectively, with no tillage (NT). In 1997, a dry season with low runoff, only the late cattle removal with NT had reduced yield (3.4 Mg ha −1 compared with 3.9 Mg ha −1 for ungrazed NT). Use of one‐time sweep tillage early in fallow resulted in an increase in sorghum grain yield of 1.9 Mg ha −1 in 1996 for the late cattle removal treatment compared with NT, but it had no effect on yield with the normal cattle removal treatment. In 1997, one‐time sweep tillage increased yield by 0.3 Mg ha −1 with late removal. When wheat residue was ≤2.4 Mg ha −1 following grazing, sweep tillage reduced surface compaction, increased soil water at planting an average of 26 mm over 2 yr, and improved grain yield of sorghum compared with NT. If wheat residues were ≥3.5 Mg ha −1 after grazing, NT was as effective as any tillage treatment. Results agree with conservation tillage guidelines developed on ungrazed wheat.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing increased surface soil compaction.
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grazing increased surface soil compaction”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing reduced wheat residues.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- Grazinge0
- Outcome
- wheat residuese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grazing increased surface soil compaction and reduced wheat residues.”
Claim · model-written summary
Penetration resistance rose across later cattle removal dates from 0.36 to 0.92 Mpa.
- Treatment
- early, normal, and late cattle removal datese0
- Outcome
- penetration resistancee0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 0.36, 0.52, 0.75, and 0.92 Mpae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Surface soil (0–5 cm) penetration resistance was 0.36, 0.52, 0.75, and 0.92 Mpa, and wheat residue in 1996 was 6.0, 4.8, 3.5, and 1.2 Mg ha for ungrazed and early, normal, and late cattle removal dates, respectively.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat residue declined across later cattle removal dates.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- early, normal, and late cattle removal datese0
- Outcome
- wheat residuee0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 6.0, 4.8, 3.5, and 1.2 Mg hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat residue in 1996 was 6.0, 4.8, 3.5, and 1.2 Mg ha for ungrazed and early, normal, and late cattle removal dates, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under no tillage in wet 1996, sorghum yields were 7.9, 7.5, 7.0, and 3.8 Mg ha across grazing dates.
- Treatment
- no tillage (NT)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- 7.9, 7.5, 7.0, and 3.8 Mg ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sorghum grain yield in 1996, an exceptionally wet season, was 7.9, 7.5, 7.0, and 3.8 Mg ha −1 , respectively, with no tillage (NT).”
Claim · model-written summary
Late cattle removal with no tillage reduced 1997 sorghum yield to 3.4 versus 3.9 Mg ha −1.
- Treatment
- late cattle removal with NTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 3.4 Mg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 3.9 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- ungrazed NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the late cattle removal with NT had reduced yield (3.4 Mg ha −1 compared with 3.9 Mg ha −1 for ungrazed NT)”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweep tillage increased 1996 sorghum yield by 1.9 Mg ha −1 after late removal.
- Treatment
- one‐time sweep tillage early in fallowe0
- Outcome
- sorghum grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 1.9 Mg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- late cattle removal treatmente0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one‐time sweep tillage early in fallow resulted in an increase in sorghum grain yield of 1.9 Mg ha −1 in 1996 for the late cattle removal treatment compared with NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweep tillage did not affect yield after normal cattle removal.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it had no effect on yield with the normal cattle removal treatment”
t0“Tillage Effects on Subsequent Dryland Grain Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweep tillage increased 1997 yield by 0.3 Mg ha −1 after late removal.
- Treatment
- one‐time sweep tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.3 Mg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- late removale0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1997, one‐time sweep tillage increased yield by 0.3 Mg ha −1 with late removal.”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
With low wheat residue, sweep tillage reduced surface compaction.
- Treatment
- sweep tillagee0
- Outcome
- surface compactione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- wheat residue was ≤2.4 Mg ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When wheat residue was ≤2.4 Mg ha −1 following grazing, sweep tillage reduced surface compaction”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
With low residue, sweep tillage increased soil water at planting by 26 mm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased soil water at planting an average of 26 mm over 2 yr”
t0“Tillage Effects on Subsequent Dryland Grain Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
With low residue, sweep tillage improved sorghum yield versus no tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“improved grain yield of sorghum compared with NT”
t0“Tillage Effects on Subsequent Dryland Grain Sorghum Production”
Claim · model-written summary
With wheat residue at least 3.5 Mg ha −1, no tillage was as effective as tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- as effective as any tillage treatmente0
- Direction
- as effectivee0
- Qualifier
- ≥3.5 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- any tillage treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“If wheat residues were ≥3.5 Mg ha −1 after grazing, NT was as effective as any tillage treatment.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 papers →grazing · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · soil: physics · SorghumPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →rotation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →grazing · soil: physics · SorghumResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
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.