Abstract
Abstract Reduced tillage practices designed to control soil loss in the Palouse region of northern Idaho may adversely affect soil physical properties and decrease yields. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of long‐term tillage and rotation practices on wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) yields following 10 yr of continuous management. Yields were obtained from 1984 to 1987 on a long‐term tillage rotation experiment established in 1974 near Moscow, ID. Tillage treatments included conventional (CONV, moldboard plow), minimum (MIN, chisel), and no‐tillage (NT). Crop rotations were a 2‐yr winter wheat‐spring pea ( Pisum sativum L.) (WW‐SP) rotation and a 3‐yr winter wheat‐spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)‐spring pea (WW‐SB‐SP) rotation. Yields of the MIN and NT treatments averaged over the 4‐yr period were 92 and 78% of the CONV treatment. Differences between yields were significant (P <0.05). No‐till yields were significantly less (P < 0.05) than both the CONV and MIN treatments during all years, whereas MIN and CONV yields were not significantly different during 1986 and 1987. Wheat grown under the WW‐SB‐SP rotation yielded significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the WW‐SP rotation. Profile water extraction and N uptake were reduced in the MIN and NT treatments. The apparent decrease in root function may have resulted from higher surface layer impedance, or possibly, greater root disease pressure under MIN and NT management. Results indicate that winter wheat production under continuous no‐till management in the Palouse region may not be feasible without substantial yield reductions. A reduced tillage system that utilizes some limited tillage appears to be a viable management alternative to conventional practices.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage wheat yield averaged 92% of conventional yield.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- minimum (MIN, chisel)e2
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Value
- 92e0
- Comparator
- CONV treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of the MIN and NT treatments averaged over the 4‐yr period were 92 and 78% of the CONV treatment”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“minimum (MIN, chisel)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage wheat yield averaged 78% of conventional yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- no‐tillage (NT)e2
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Value
- 78%e0
- Comparator
- CONV treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of the MIN and NT treatments averaged over the 4‐yr period were 92 and 78% of the CONV treatment”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“no‐tillage (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till yields were significantly lower than conventional and minimum tillage in every year.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- No‐tille0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- during all yearse0
- Comparator
- CONV and MIN treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐till yields were significantly less (P < 0.05) than both the CONV and MIN treatments during all years”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum and conventional tillage yields did not differ significantly in 1986 and 1987.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- MINe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Qualifier
- 1986 and 1987e0
- Comparator
- CONVe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MIN and CONV yields were not significantly different during 1986 and 1987”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
WW-SB-SP rotation gave significantly greater wheat yield than WW-SP.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- WW‐SB‐SP rotatione0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- WW‐SP rotatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat grown under the WW‐SB‐SP rotation yielded significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the WW‐SP rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage reduced wheat profile water extraction.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- MINe0
- Outcome
- Profile water extractione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Profile water extraction and N uptake were reduced in the MIN and NT treatments”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage reduced wheat profile water extraction.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Profile water extractione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Profile water extraction and N uptake were reduced in the MIN and NT treatments”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage reduced wheat N uptake.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- MINe0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Profile water extraction and N uptake were reduced in the MIN and NT treatments”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage reduced wheat N uptake.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Profile water extraction and N uptake were reduced in the MIN and NT treatments”
e1“wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“conventional (CONV, moldboard plow)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude continuous no-till wheat production may be infeasible without substantial yield reductions.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- may not be feasible without substantial yield reductionse0
- Setting
- Palouse regione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“winter wheat production under continuous no‐till management in the Palouse region may not be feasible without substantial yield reductions”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider limited tillage a viable alternative to conventional practice.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- a viable management alternative to conventional practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A reduced tillage system that utilizes some limited tillage appears to be a viable management alternative to conventional practices”
e1“winter wheat production”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 119 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
141 papers more in this group
See all 145 papers →rotation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 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.