Abstract
ABSTRACT Rising production costs, unstable cereal grain prices, soil degradation due to excessive tillage and nitrate leaching are main constraints to sustainable agriculture in the Canadian prairies. Replacing conventional tillage (CT) with no-till (NT) and cereal-fallow rotations with crop rotations comprising cereals, oilseeds and legumes is thus encouraged, but information on crop rotation by tillage interaction is scarce. Properties of a silt loam (Dark Gray Luvisol), weed population and wheat production (Triticum aestivum L.) in canola (Brassica campestris L.)-wheat-wheat (C), fallow-wheat-wheat (F), field pea (Pisum sativum L.)-wheat-wheat (P) and continuous wheat (W) cropping systems were compared under CT and NT. Percentage of water stable aggregates (WSA) was reduced after a fallow season. Soil NO3-N was similar among cropped plots which was significantly lower than fallow plots in two of the three years. Ammonium-N, extractable P and penetration resistance (PR) of soil were not affected by crop rotation. The W plots tended to have more weeds than both the first (W1) and second (W2) year wheat plots in rotations. Wheat appeared to suppress weeds better than canola, field pea or fallow. Average production of 3.95 Mg ha−1 yr−1 as grain and 10.7 Mg ha−1 yr−1 as above-ground dry matter (AGDM) by the W1 were significantly greater than the corresponding production by W2 and W. Wheat grain and AGDM production in the two years of C, F, P and W systems were not significantly different in most cases. However, cumulative yields by C, P and W systems for three years of rotation were greater than the corresponding grain and AGDM yields from F rotation by 1.10 to 4.19 and 4.3 to 8.7 Mg ha−1, respectively. Tillage did not affect NO3-N, NH4-N, P and WSA in soil but reduced its PR. The NT system provided better control of annual broadleaf weeds whereas perennial weeds were better controlled by CT. The CT system produced more grains (average of 0.42 Mg ha−1 yr−1) than NT system. Crop rotation by tillage interaction effects on soil properties, weed populations and crop yields were not significant which indicated that the crop rotations were equally effective under both the tillage systems. Benefits of crop rotation over monoculture in this study were of similar nature as in earlier studies conducted on fields already under annual cropping systems. Canola and field pea were more beneficial than wheat as previous-crop for wheat production. Replacing fallow with a crop resulted in (a) increased crop production and straw returned to soil; (b) reduced potential for leaching of NO3-N; and (c) improved water stable aggregation of soil. KEYWORDS: Wheatweedssoil propertiescrop rotationtillage
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow reduced water-stable soil aggregates.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Percentage of water stable aggregates (WSA) was reduced after a fallow season”
Claim · model-written summary
Cropped plots had lower soil nitrate than fallow plots in two of three years.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Soil NO3-N was similar among cropped plots which was significantly lower than fallow plots in two of the three years”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop rotation did not affect soil ammonium, extractable phosphorus or penetration resistance.
- Treatment
- crop rotatione0
- Outcome
- Ammonium-N, extractable P and penetration resistance (PR)e0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Ammonium-N, extractable P and penetration resistance (PR) of soil were not affected by crop rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous wheat tended to have more weeds than first- and second-year rotational wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- weedse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- first (W1) and second (W2) year wheat plots in rotationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The W plots tended to have more weeds than both the first (W1) and second (W2) year wheat plots in rotations”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat appeared to suppress weeds more than canola, pea or fallow.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- weedse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- canola, field pea or fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat appeared to suppress weeds better than canola, field pea or fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
First-year rotational wheat grain production was 3.95 Mg ha−1 yr−1, significantly above second-year and continuous wheat.
Verbatim
e0“Average production of 3.95 Mg ha−1 yr−1 as grain and 10.7 Mg ha−1 yr−1 as above-ground dry matter (AGDM) by the W1 were significantly greater than the corresponding production by W2 and W”
Claim · model-written summary
First-year rotational wheat dry matter production was 10.7 Mg ha−1 yr−1, significantly above second-year and continuous wheat.
Verbatim
e0“10.7 Mg ha−1 yr−1 as above-ground dry matter (AGDM) by the W1 were significantly greater than the corresponding production by W2 and W”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain and dry-matter production in two years of the four systems usually did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- grain and AGDM productione0
- Qualifier
- in most casese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat grain and AGDM production in the two years of C, F, P and W systems were not significantly different in most cases”
Claim · model-written summary
Three-year grain yields of canola, pea and continuous wheat rotations exceeded fallow rotation by 1.10 to 4.19 Mg ha−1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“cumulative yields by C, P and W systems for three years of rotation were greater than the corresponding grain and AGDM yields from F rotation by 1.10 to 4.19 and 4.3 to 8.7 Mg ha−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Three-year dry-matter yields of canola, pea and continuous wheat rotations exceeded fallow rotation by 4.3 to 8.7 Mg ha−1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“cumulative yields by C, P and W systems for three years of rotation were greater than the corresponding grain and AGDM yields from F rotation by 1.10 to 4.19 and 4.3 to 8.7 Mg ha−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect soil nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus or water-stable aggregates.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Tillage did not affect NO3-N, NH4-N, P and WSA in soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage reduced soil penetration resistance.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Tillage did not affect NO3-N, NH4-N, P and WSA in soil but reduced its PR”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till controlled annual broadleaf weeds better.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The NT system provided better control of annual broadleaf weeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage controlled perennial weeds better.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“perennial weeds were better controlled by CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage produced 0.42 Mg ha−1 yr−1 more grain than no-till.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The CT system produced more grains (average of 0.42 Mg ha−1 yr−1) than NT system”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-by-tillage interactions for soil, weeds and yield were not significant.
- Outcome
- soil properties, weed populations and crop yieldse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Crop rotation by tillage interaction effects on soil properties, weed populations and crop yields were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Canola and field pea were more beneficial previous crops than wheat for subsequent wheat production.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- wheat productione0
- Direction
- more beneficiale0
- Comparator
- wheat as previous-crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Canola and field pea were more beneficial than wheat as previous-crop for wheat production”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing fallow with a crop increased production and straw returned to soil.
- Treatment
- Replacing fallow with a crope0
- Outcome
- crop production and straw returned to soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Replacing fallow with a crop resulted in (a) increased crop production and straw returned to soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing fallow with a crop reduced potential nitrate leaching.
- Treatment
- Replacing fallow with a crope0
- Outcome
- potential for leaching of NO3-Ne0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Replacing fallow with a crop resulted in (a) increased crop production and straw returned to soil; (b) reduced potential for leaching of NO3-N”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing fallow with a crop improved soil water-stable aggregation.
- Treatment
- Replacing fallow with a crope0
- Outcome
- water stable aggregation of soile0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Replacing fallow with a crop resulted in (a) increased crop production and straw returned to soil; (b) reduced potential for leaching of NO3-N; and (c) improved water stable aggregation of soil”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
179 papers more in this group
See all 183 papers →rotation · environment: emissions · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
rotation · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →rotation · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →tillage · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 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
- no effect
- positive
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.