Abstract
Mean protein concentrations in wheat (Triticum aestivum) on the Darling Downs of southern Queensland have fallen below 10% in recent years, preventing farmers from obtaining 'Prime Hard' status (13.0%) for their wheat crop. Two management options, for improving this situation are applications of nitrogenous fertiliser in a wheat monoculture or inclusion of a legume in rotation with wheat. Long-term trials at Warra, on the western Darling Downs, resulted in the selection of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) as a useful grain legume cash crop with potential for improvement of its nitrogen (N) fixing ability through management. This 2-year study examined the effect of sowing time and tillage practice on dry matter yield, grain yield, N accumulation and N2 fixation in chickpea and the subsequent soil N balance. There were 3 sowing times during autumn and winter of each year using conventional tillage (CT). Zero tillage (ZT) was introduced after the first crop for all sowing times. Greater total dry matter yield and grain yield (4.18-5.95 and 1.63-2.25 t/ha, respectively) resulted from sowing in autumn or early winter than from sowing in late winter (3.39-3.86 and 0.97-1.22 kg/ha, respectively). The effects of tillage practice were variable, depending on growth stage. At harvest, ZT plots produced greater total dry matter yield (4.20 t/ha) and grain yield (1.94 t/ha) than CT plots (3.01 and 1.29 t/ha, respectively), whereas at the time of maximum dry matter, yield was higher under CT for autumn sowings, and under ZT for winter sowings.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Autumn or early-winter sowing gave greater chickpea dry matter yield than late-winter sowing.
- Taxon
- chickpea (Cicer arietinum)
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- sowing in autumn or early wintere0
- Outcome
- total dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- Greatere0
- Value
- 4.18-5.95e0
- Qualifier
- 3.39-3.86e0
- Comparator
- sowing in late wintere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greater total dry matter yield and grain yield (4.18-5.95 and 1.63-2.25 t/ha, respectively) resulted from sowing in autumn or early winter than from sowing in late winter (3.39-3.86 and 0.97-1.22 kg/ha, respectively).”
e1“chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Autumn or early-winter sowing gave greater chickpea grain yield than late-winter sowing.
- Taxon
- chickpea (Cicer arietinum)Cicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- sowing in autumn or early wintere0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- Greatere0
- Value
- 1.63-2.25 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 0.97-1.22 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- sowing in late wintere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Greater total dry matter yield and grain yield (4.18-5.95 and 1.63-2.25 t/ha, respectively) resulted from sowing in autumn or early winter than from sowing in late winter (3.39-3.86 and 0.97-1.22 kg/ha, respectively).”
e1“chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”
Claim · model-written summary
At harvest, zero tillage gave greater chickpea dry matter yield than conventional tillage, 4.20 versus 3.01 t/ha.
- Taxon
- chickpea (Cicer arietinum)Cicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- ZT plotse0
- Outcome
- total dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4.20 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 3.01e0
- Comparator
- CT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At harvest, ZT plots produced greater total dry matter yield (4.20 t/ha) and grain yield (1.94 t/ha) than CT plots (3.01 and 1.29 t/ha, respectively)”
e1“chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”
Claim · model-written summary
At harvest, zero tillage gave greater chickpea grain yield than conventional tillage, 1.94 versus 1.29 t/ha.
- Taxon
- chickpea (Cicer arietinum)Cicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- ZT plotse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.94 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 1.29 t/hae0
- Comparator
- CT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At harvest, ZT plots produced greater total dry matter yield (4.20 t/ha) and grain yield (1.94 t/ha) than CT plots (3.01 and 1.29 t/ha, respectively)”
e1“chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”
Claim · model-written summary
At maximum dry matter, conventional tillage gave higher yield for autumn sowing.
- Taxon
- chickpea (Cicer arietinum)Cicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- autumn sowingse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at the time of maximum dry matter, yield was higher under CT for autumn sowings”
e1“chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”
Claim · model-written summary
At maximum dry matter, zero tillage gave higher yield for winter sowing.
- Taxon
- chickpea (Cicer arietinum)Cicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- winter sowingse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield was higher under CT for autumn sowings, and under ZT for winter sowings”
e1“chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
81 papers more in this group
See all 85 papers →tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 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.