Abstract
Management practices can have a major impact on the successful production of winter cereals. A field experiment was conducted with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to compare the effects of two row spacing planting patterns (row width set at 30 cm, 30; or row widths set at a narrow row of 20 cm and a wide row of 40 cm, 20 + 40) and four irrigation schedules (no irrigation, T0; irrigation given at stem elongation stage, T1; at stem elongation and heading stage, T2; at stem elongation, heading and milk stage, T3) on yield, water use efficiency (WUE), evapotranspiration (ET) and soil water content (SWC) for the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons at Taian, Shandong Province, China. Mean soil daily evaporation (Es) was greater in the wide row than the narrow row, and resulted in decreased SWC in the wide row. For the same irrigation treatment, no significant differences in changes of SWC and yield were found between the row-spacing planting patterns in either season. Differences in ET were found in 2005 with ET from the T0 treatment being much lower than the irrigated treatments for both planting patterns. During the cropping season in 2005, WUE of the T3 treatment was lower than from the T1 and T0 treatments at the same planting patterns. The WUE of the 20 + 40 planting pattern was lower than that of the 30 planting pattern with the same irrigation schedule, perhaps due to elevated levels of evaporation from the soil beneath the canopy and decreased yields for the 20 + 40 planting pattern. Therefore, based on WUE, the effect of the 30 planting pattern was better than that of the 20 + 40. Key words: Planting pattern, soil water content, evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, grain yield, Triticum aestivum
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Soil daily evaporation was greater in wide than narrow rows.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- the wide rowe0
- Outcome
- Mean soil daily evaporation (Es)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- the narrow rowe0
- Setting
- Taian, Shandong Province, Chinae2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean soil daily evaporation (Es) was greater in the wide row than the narrow row”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
e2“Taian, Shandong Province, China”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater evaporation in wide rows decreased soil water content there.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume2
- Outcome
- SWCe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- soil daily evaporation (Es)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in decreased SWC in the wide row”
e1“Mean soil daily evaporation (Es) was greater in the wide row than the narrow row”
e2“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Changes in soil water content did not differ significantly between row spacing patterns at the same irrigation level.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- row-spacing planting patternse0
- Outcome
- changes of SWCe0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- between the row-spacing planting patternse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the same irrigation treatment, no significant differences in changes of SWC and yield were found between the row-spacing planting patterns in either season”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield did not differ significantly between row spacing patterns at the same irrigation level.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- row-spacing planting patternse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- between the row-spacing planting patternse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the same irrigation treatment, no significant differences in changes of SWC and yield were found between the row-spacing planting patterns in either season”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Without irrigation, evapotranspiration was much lower than under irrigated treatments in 2005 for both planting patterns.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- T0 treatmente0
- Outcome
- ETe0
- Direction
- much lowere0
- Qualifier
- both planting patternse0
- Comparator
- the irrigated treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ET from the T0 treatment being much lower than the irrigated treatments for both planting patterns”
e1“Differences in ET were found in 2005”
e2“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2005, T3 water use efficiency was lower than T1 at the same planting patterns.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- T3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WUE of the T3 treatment was lower than from the T1 and T0 treatments at the same planting patterns”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2005, T3 water use efficiency was lower than T0 at the same planting patterns.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- T3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- T0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“WUE of the T3 treatment was lower than from the T1 and T0 treatments at the same planting patterns”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 20 + 40 row pattern had lower water use efficiency than the 30 pattern at the same irrigation schedule.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- 20 + 40 planting patterne0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- 30 planting patterne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The WUE of the 20 + 40 planting pattern was lower than that of the 30 planting pattern with the same irrigation schedule”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered the 30 row pattern preferable on water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)Triticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- the 30 planting pattern was bettere0
- Comparator
- the 20 + 40e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“based on WUE, the effect of the 30 planting pattern was better than that of the 20 + 40”
e1“winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
The same questions in other papers
density · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →density · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 376 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
494 papers more in this group
See all 498 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.