Paper · 1993 · The Journal of Agricultural Science

Performance of conventional and alternative cropping systems in cryoboreal subhumid central Alberta

R. C. Izaurralde; N. G. Juma; W. B. McGill; et al.

11
claims
11
verbatim quotes
35
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SUMMARY A 3-year field study (1986–88) was conducted in central Alberta to discover how diverse soil-plant systems function under cryoboreal subhumid conditions. Barley, fescue, faba (field) bean and a barley/field pea intercrop were grown continuously on different soils at Ellerslie and Breton using two distinct tillage methods. The agronomic performance, weed-crop interactions and below-ground productivity of these cropping systems were examined. The main findings were as follows: different soil properties did not affect yields of barley, barley/field pea and fescue fertilized with N and P; silage yield of faba bean at Breton was greater than at Ellerslie; barley/field pea and faba bean could be grown without tillage at Ellerslie; barley/field pea plots had the lowest weed counts; fescue root biomass was greatest at all depths followed by faba bean and barley; and soil properties appeared not to induce differences in root production of a cereal, an annual forage legume and a perennial grass. Increasing the use of annual legumes into rotations, either as sole crops or as intercrops with cereals, may be a viable alternative to continuous cereal cropping because annual legumes contribute N through biological N fixation, reduce weed competition and increase the input of root mass in soil.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Different soils did not affect fertilized barley yield.

Treatment
different soil propertiese0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“different soil properties did not affect yields of barley, barley/field pea and fescue fertilized with N and P”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 488–598 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Different soils did not affect fertilized barley/field pea yield.

Taxon
barley/field peae0
Treatment
different soil propertiese0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“different soil properties did not affect yields of barley, barley/field pea and fescue fertilized with N and P”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 488–598 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Different soils did not affect fertilized fescue yield.

Taxon
fescuee0
Treatment
different soil propertiese0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“different soil properties did not affect yields of barley, barley/field pea and fescue fertilized with N and P”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 488–598 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Faba bean silage yield was greater at Breton than Ellerslie.

Taxon
faba beanVicia fabae0
Outcome
silage yielde0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
Ellersliee0
Setting
Bretone0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vicia faba
Vicia faba · TaxonRahmaziz · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“silage yield of faba bean at Breton was greater than at Ellerslie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–665 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley/field pea could be grown without tillage at Ellerslie.

Taxon
barley/field peae0
Outcome
could be grown without tillagee0
Setting
Ellersliee0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“barley/field pea and faba bean could be grown without tillage at Ellerslie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 667–741 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Faba bean could be grown without tillage at Ellerslie.

Taxon
faba beanVicia fabae0
Outcome
could be grown without tillagee0
Setting
Ellersliee0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vicia faba
Vicia faba · TaxonRahmaziz · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“barley/field pea and faba bean could be grown without tillage at Ellerslie”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 667–741 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley/field pea plots had the lowest weed counts.

Taxon
barley/field peae0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed countse0
Direction
loweste0

Verbatim

e0

“barley/field pea plots had the lowest weed counts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 743–792 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fescue had the greatest root biomass at all depths.

Taxon
fescuee0
Organ / stage
roote0
Outcome
root biomasse0
Direction
greateste0
Qualifier
at all depthse0

Verbatim

e0

“fescue root biomass was greatest at all depths followed by faba bean and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–873 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Faba bean root biomass ranked below fescue and above barley.

Taxon
faba beanVicia fabae0
Outcome
root biomasse0
Direction
followed bye0
Comparator
fescuee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vicia faba
Vicia faba · TaxonRahmaziz · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fescue root biomass was greatest at all depths followed by faba bean and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–873 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil properties appeared not to induce differences in root production across the crop groups.

Taxon
a cereal, an annual forage legume and a perennial grasse0
Outcome
root productione0
Direction
not to induce differencese0

Verbatim

e0

“soil properties appeared not to induce differences in root production of a cereal, an annual forage legume and a perennial grass.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 879–1008 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend greater use of annual legumes in rotations as an alternative to continuous cereal cropping.

Taxon
annual legumese0
Outcome
Increasing the use of annual legumes into rotationse0
Comparator
continuous cereal croppinge0

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing the use of annual legumes into rotations, either as sole crops or as intercrops with cereals, may be a viable alternative to continuous cereal cropping because annual legumes contribute N through biological N fixation, reduce weed competition and increase the input of root mass in soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1009–1307 · show in text ↑

soil · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

soil · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.