Abstract
Following long-term studies at Warra, on the western Darling Downs, chckpea (Cicer anetinum) was selected 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 (Horn et al. 1996), N accumulation, N2 fixation, and the subsequent soil N balance. Generally, greater N accumulation resulted from sowing in late autumn-early winter (89-117 kg N/ha) than sowing in late winter (76-90 kg N/ha). The amount of N2 fixed was low in both years (15-32 kg N/ha), and was not significantly affected by sowing time or tillage. The potential for N2 fixation was reduced in both years due to high initial soil nitrate levels and low total biomass of chickpea because of low rainfall. Nitrogen accumulation by grain was higher under zero tillage (ZT) than conventional tillage (CT) for all sowing times, and this affected the level of grain N export. The consequence of low N2 fixation and high N export in chickpea grain was a net loss of total soil N, (2-48 kg N/ha under CT and 22-59 kg N/ha under ZT). Management practices to ensure larger biomass production and lower soil nitrate-N levels may result in increased N2 fixation by chickpea and thus a positive soil N balance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Late autumn to early winter sowing gave greater N accumulation than late winter sowing.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- sowing in late autumn-early wintere0
- Outcome
- N accumulatione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 89-117 kg N/hae0
- Comparator
- sowing in late wintere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“greater N accumulation resulted from sowing in late autumn-early winter (89-117 kg N/ha) than sowing in late winter (76-90 kg N/ha)”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
N2 fixation was low in both years.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Outcome
- amount of N2 fixede0
- Value
- 15-32 kg N/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amount of N2 fixed was low in both years (15-32 kg N/ha)”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Sowing time did not significantly affect N2 fixation.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- sowing timee0
- Outcome
- N2 fixatione1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was not significantly affected by sowing time or tillage”
e1“N2 fixation was reduced in both years”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not significantly affect N2 fixation.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Outcome
- N2 fixatione1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was not significantly affected by sowing time or tillage”
e1“N2 fixation was reduced in both years”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
High initial nitrate and low biomass reduced fixation potential.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Outcome
- potential for N2 fixatione0
- Qualifier
- high initial soil nitrate levels and low total biomasse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The potential for N2 fixation was reduced in both years due to high initial soil nitrate levels and low total biomass of chickpea because of low rainfall”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage increased grain N accumulation relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- zero tillage (ZT)e0
- Outcome
- Nitrogen accumulation by graine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen accumulation by grain was higher under zero tillage (ZT) than conventional tillage (CT) for all sowing times”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conventional tillage, chickpea caused a net soil N loss of 2 to 48 kg N/ha.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- net loss of total soil Ne0
- Value
- 2-48 kg N/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a net loss of total soil N, (2-48 kg N/ha under CT and 22-59 kg N/ha under ZT)”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Under zero tillage, chickpea caused a net soil N loss of 22 to 59 kg N/ha.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- net loss of total soil Ne0
- Value
- 22-59 kg N/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a net loss of total soil N, (2-48 kg N/ha under CT and 22-59 kg N/ha under ZT)”
t0“chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · symbiosis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →sowing time · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.