Abstract
Summary. In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic) was investigated in conjunction with two row spacings (15 cm and 9 cm) and three sowing densities (125, 250 and 350 plants m ‐2 ). Weed biomass was influenced initially by crop density, and following stem extension by both cultivar and density, although these factors did not interact. Tillering capacity was a poor predictor of weed suppression ability and Spark, the more profusely tillering cultivar, contained greater weed biomass than Tonic. The earlier stem extension of Tonic increased shading at 0–20 cm above ground level compared to Spark and this was believed to be the reason for reduced weed biomass. Row spacing did not influence weed suppression, but grain yield was reduced in 15 cm rows at a density of 350 plants m ‐12 compared to 250 plants m ‐12 . This may be of importance to growers contemplating the use of wider row spacings for mechanical weeding.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Weed biomass was influenced initially by crop density.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- crop densitye2
- Outcome
- Weed biomasse2
- Qualifier
- initiallye2
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e2“Weed biomass was influenced initially by crop density, and following stem extension by both cultivar and density, although these factors did not interact”
Claim · model-written summary
Following stem extension, weed biomass was influenced by cultivar.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- cultivare2
- Outcome
- Weed biomasse2
- Qualifier
- following stem extensione2
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e2“Weed biomass was influenced initially by crop density, and following stem extension by both cultivar and density, although these factors did not interact”
Claim · model-written summary
Following stem extension, weed biomass was influenced by crop density.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- densitye2
- Outcome
- Weed biomasse2
- Qualifier
- following stem extensione2
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e2“Weed biomass was influenced initially by crop density, and following stem extension by both cultivar and density, although these factors did not interact”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar and density did not interact in their effect on weed biomass.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- cultivar and densitye2
- Outcome
- Weed biomasse2
- Qualifier
- these factors did not interacte2
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e2“Weed biomass was influenced initially by crop density, and following stem extension by both cultivar and density, although these factors did not interact”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillering capacity was a poor predictor of weed suppression ability in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Tillering capacitye3
- Outcome
- weed suppression abilitye3
- Qualifier
- poor predictore3
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e3“Tillering capacity was a poor predictor of weed suppression ability”
Claim · model-written summary
The more profusely tillering wheat cultivar Spark contained greater weed biomass than Tonic.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Material
- Sparke4
- Treatment
- cultivare4
- Outcome
- weed biomasse4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Comparator
- Tonice4
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e4“Spark, the more profusely tillering cultivar, contained greater weed biomass than Tonic”
Claim · model-written summary
The earlier stem extension of Tonic increased canopy shading at 0-20 cm above ground level compared with Spark.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Material
- Tonice5
- Treatment
- earlier stem extensione5
- Outcome
- shadinge5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm above ground levele5
- Comparator
- Sparke5
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e5“The earlier stem extension of Tonic increased shading at 0–20 cm above ground level compared to Spark”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased shading after earlier stem extension of Tonic was believed to explain its reduced weed biomass.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- reduced weed biomasse6
- Qualifier
- increased shading at 0–20 cm above ground levele5
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e5“The earlier stem extension of Tonic increased shading at 0–20 cm above ground level compared to Spark”
e6“this was believed to be the reason for reduced weed biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
Row spacing did not influence weed suppression in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Row spacinge7
- Outcome
- weed suppressione7
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede7
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e7“Row spacing did not influence weed suppression”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield was reduced in wheat sown in 15 cm rows at 350 plants per m2 compared with 250 plants per m2.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- 15 cm rows at a density of 350 plants m ‐12e2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Comparator
- 250 plants m ‐12e2
- Setting
- 1995/1996e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In 1995/1996 weed suppression ability of two wheat cultivars (Spark and Tonic)”
e2“grain yield was reduced in 15 cm rows at a density of 350 plants m ‐12 compared to 250 plants m ‐12”
The same questions in other papers
density · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 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.