Abstract
Rhizoctonia bare patch caused by Rhizoctonia solani AG-8 is a major fungal root disease in no-till cropping systems. In an 8-year experiment comparing various dryland no-till cropping systems near Ritzville, WA, Rhizoctonia bare patch first appeared in year 3 and continued unabated through year 8. Crop rotation had no effect on bare patch during the first 5 years. However, from years 6 to 8, both soft white and hard white classes of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in a 2-year rotation with spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) had an average of only 7% of total land area with bare patches compared with 15% in continuous annual soft white wheat or hard white wheat (i.e., monoculture wheat). In years 6 to 8, average grain yield of both soft white wheat and hard white wheat were greater (P < 0.001) when grown in rotation with barley than in monoculture. Although both classes of wheat had less bare patch area and greater grain yield when grown in rotation with barley, monoculture hard white wheat was more severely affected by Rhizoctonia than soft white wheat. Soil water levels were higher in bare patches, indicating that roots of healthy cereals did not grow into or underneath bare patch areas. This is the first documentation of suppression of Rhizoctonia bare patch disease in low-disturbance no-till systems with rotation of cereal crops.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Crop rotation had no effect on bare patch in wheat during the first 5 years.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- Crop rotatione2
- Outcome
- bare patche2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“in Wheat with Barley Rotations”
e2“Crop rotation had no effect on bare patch during the first 5 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Soft white spring wheat in a 2-year rotation with barley had 7% of land area with bare patches in years 6 to 8, lower than 15% in continuous soft white wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Material
- soft whitee4
- Treatment
- 2-year rotation with spring barleye4
- Outcome
- total land area with bare patchese4
- Direction
- lowerinferrede4
- Value
- 7%e4
- Qualifier
- from years 6 to 8e4
- Comparator
- continuous annual soft white wheate4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“from years 6 to 8, both soft white and hard white classes of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in a 2-year rotation with spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) had an average of only 7% of total land area with bare patches compared with 15% in continuous annual soft white wheat or hard white wheat (i.e., monoculture wheat)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hard white spring wheat in a 2-year rotation with barley had 7% of land area with bare patches in years 6 to 8, lower than 15% in monoculture wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Material
- hard whitee4
- Treatment
- 2-year rotation with spring barleye4
- Outcome
- total land area with bare patchese4
- Direction
- lowerinferrede4
- Value
- 7%e4
- Qualifier
- from years 6 to 8e4
- Comparator
- monoculture wheate4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“from years 6 to 8, both soft white and hard white classes of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in a 2-year rotation with spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) had an average of only 7% of total land area with bare patches compared with 15% in continuous annual soft white wheat or hard white wheat (i.e., monoculture wheat)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soft white wheat grown in rotation with barley had greater average grain yield than in monoculture in years 6 to 8 (P < 0.001).
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume5
- Material
- soft whitee5
- Treatment
- rotation with barleye5
- Outcome
- average grain yielde5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Qualifier
- P < 0.001e5
- Comparator
- monoculturee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“In years 6 to 8, average grain yield of both soft white wheat and hard white wheat were greater (P < 0.001) when grown in rotation with barley than in monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Hard white wheat grown in rotation with barley had greater average grain yield than in monoculture in years 6 to 8 (P < 0.001).
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume5
- Material
- hard whitee5
- Treatment
- rotation with barleye5
- Outcome
- average grain yielde5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Qualifier
- P < 0.001e5
- Comparator
- monoculturee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“In years 6 to 8, average grain yield of both soft white wheat and hard white wheat were greater (P < 0.001) when grown in rotation with barley than in monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Monoculture hard white wheat was more severely affected by Rhizoctonia than soft white wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Material
- hard whitee6
- Treatment
- monoculturee6
- Interactor
- Rhizoctonia
.jpg?width=60)
Rhizoctoniae6pathogen - Outcome
- affected by Rhizoctoniae6
- Direction
- more severelye6
- Comparator
- soft white wheate6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e6“Although both classes of wheat had less bare patch area and greater grain yield when grown in rotation with barley, monoculture hard white wheat was more severely affected by Rhizoctonia than soft white wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water levels were higher in bare patches.
Verbatim
e7“Soil water levels were higher in bare patches, indicating that roots of healthy cereals did not grow into or underneath bare patch areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Roots of healthy cereals did not grow into or underneath bare patch areas.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e7“Soil water levels were higher in bare patches, indicating that roots of healthy cereals did not grow into or underneath bare patch areas”
The same questions in other papers
Hordeum vulgare · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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
- negative
- negative
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.