Abstract
Abstract In field experiments conducted over 2 years in Mediterranean conditions, five winter and five spring triticales were evaluated for forage and grain production in the same cropping season. The experiments had two treatments, namely harvesting for grain only, and dual‐purpose forage and grain production. In the latter treatment, forage was cut when the first node was detectable (Zadoks' stage 31), without removing the apical meristems. Grain was harvested when ripe (Zadoks' stage 92) in both cut and uncut plots. Environmental conditions affected grain production and protein content more than forage yield and quality. Winter triticales yielded about 43% more forage than spring types, but after forage removal the spring types yielded about 36% more grain than winter triticales. Reductions in grain yield after clipping were more pronounced in winter (32%) than in spring (19%) types. Forage crude protein content was significantly higher in the spring types studied (24.6%) than in the winter types (23.5%), the opposite being true for fibre content (20.7 and 21.6% respectively). Grain crude protein content did not differ between grain and dual‐purpose treatments, but was higher in the spring triticales (12.8%) than in the winter types (11.9%). There was more variability for the measured traits within the winter triticales studied than within the spring types.
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
Environmental conditions affected grain production and protein content more than forage yield and quality.
- Taxon
- triticales
×Triticosecalet0 - Outcome
- grain production and protein contente0
- Direction
- more thane0
- Setting
- Environmental conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“Environmental conditions affected grain production and protein content more than forage yield and quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter triticales yielded about 43% more forage than spring types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- Winter triticalese0
- Outcome
- foragee0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 43%e0
- Comparator
- spring typese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“Winter triticales yielded about 43% more forage than spring types”
Claim · model-written summary
After forage removal, spring types yielded about 36% more grain than winter triticales.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- spring typese0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Qualifier
- after forage removale0
- Comparator
- winter triticalese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“after forage removal the spring types yielded about 36% more grain than winter triticales”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping reduced grain yield by 32% in winter types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- wintere0
- Treatment
- clippinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- Reductionse0
- Value
- 32%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“Reductions in grain yield after clipping were more pronounced in winter (32%) than in spring (19%) types”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping reduced grain yield by 19% in spring types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- springe0
- Treatment
- clippinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- Reductionse0
- Value
- 19%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“Reductions in grain yield after clipping were more pronounced in winter (32%) than in spring (19%) types”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring forage crude protein content was significantly higher at 24.6% versus 23.5% for winter types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- spring typese0
- Outcome
- Forage crude protein contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 24.6%e0
- Qualifier
- 23.5%e0
- Comparator
- winter typese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“Forage crude protein content was significantly higher in the spring types studied (24.6%) than in the winter types (23.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring forage fibre content was lower at 20.7% versus 21.6% for winter types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- fibre contente0
- Value
- 20.7e0
- Qualifier
- 21.6%e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“the opposite being true for fibre content (20.7 and 21.6% respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain crude protein did not differ between grain only and dual purpose treatments.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- dual‐purpose treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Grain crude protein contente0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- graine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“Grain crude protein content did not differ between grain and dual‐purpose treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring grain crude protein was higher at 12.8% versus 11.9% for winter types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- spring triticalese0
- Outcome
- Grain crude protein contente1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 12.8%e0
- Qualifier
- 11.9%e0
- Comparator
- winter typese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“higher in the spring triticales (12.8%) than in the winter types (11.9%)”
e1“Grain crude protein content did not differ”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter triticales showed more variability in measured traits than spring types.
- Taxon
- triticales×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- winter triticalese0
- Outcome
- variability for the measured traitse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- spring typese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticales”
e0“There was more variability for the measured traits within the winter triticales studied than within the spring types”
The same questions in other papers
mechanical · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.