Paper · 2005 · Canadian Journal of Plant Science

Residue management and crop sequence effects on the yield and brown girdling root rot of canola

Y. K. Soon; H. W. Klein-Gebbinck; M. A. Arshad

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
15
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Brown girdling root rot (BGRR) is a serious and widespread disease of canola (Brassica rapa L.) in the Peace River region of northwestern Canada. There is no chemical control treatment for the pathogen, and farmers have observed that the disease is more severe when canola follows red fescue (Festuca rubra L.) or clover (Trifolium spp.) compared to summer fallow. A field study was conducted to determine how crop sequences following red fescue termination can be combined with residue and tillage management to reduce BGRR infection and increase canola yield. The five treatments consisted of rotations of: continuous canola (CCC) and oat (Avena sativa L.)-oat-canola (OOC), both managed using reduced tillage (RT), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-wheat-canola (WWC), managed using RT, conventional tillage (CT) or no-till (NT). Canola yield followed the trend: OOC (RT) = WWC(RT) > WWC(CT) > CCC(RT) = WWC(NT). BGRR infection increased with tillage intensity: WWC(CT) > CCC(RT) = WWC(RT) = OOC(RT) > WWC(NT), and was reduced when canola followed two cereal break crops. Yield was highest when canola was preceded by a cereal crop and lowest without a break crop. The low yield with NT was attributed to poor crop emergence from a hard seed bed with unbroken turf and to competition from re-emerged fescue in the third year after fescue breaking. This study demonstrated that the cropping sequence and tillage system used influenced canola yield to a greater extent than did BGRR infection. Key words: Brown girdling root rot, canola, crop sequence, red fescue termination, tillage

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canola yield ranked OOC and WWC under reduced tillage above WWC conventional tillage, with CCC and WWC no till lowest.

Treatment
OOC (RT) = WWC(RT)e0
Outcome
Canola yielde0
Direction
>e0
Comparator
CCC(RT) = WWC(NT)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Canola yield followed the trend: OOC (RT) = WWC(RT) > WWC(CT) > CCC(RT) = WWC(NT).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–914 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root rot infection was highest under WWC conventional tillage and lowest under WWC no till.

Treatment
tillage intensitye0
Outcome
BGRR infectione0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
WWC(NT)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“BGRR infection increased with tillage intensity: WWC(CT) > CCC(RT) = WWC(RT) = OOC(RT) > WWC(NT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 915–1011 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two cereal break crops reduced root rot infection.

Treatment
two cereal break cropse0
Outcome
was reducede0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“was reduced when canola followed two cereal break crops.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1073 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canola yield was highest after cereal crops and lowest without a break crop.

Treatment
a cereal crope0
Outcome
Yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
without a break crope0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yield was highest when canola was preceded by a cereal crop and lowest without a break crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1074–1166 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Poor emergence from a hard seedbed contributed to low no till yield.

Outcome
low yielde0
Qualifier
poor crop emergence from a hard seed bed with unbroken turfe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The low yield with NT was attributed to poor crop emergence from a hard seed bed with unbroken turf”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1266 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Competition from re emerged fescue contributed to low no till yield.

Interactor
fescuee0weed
Outcome
competition from re-emerged fescuee0
Qualifier
in the third year after fescue breakinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“and to competition from re-emerged fescue in the third year after fescue breaking.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1349 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cropping sequence and tillage affected canola yield more than infection did.

Outcome
canola yielde0
Qualifier
cropping sequence and tillage systeme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the cropping sequence and tillage system used influenced canola yield to a greater extent than did BGRR infection.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1379–1493 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–95 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

50 papers: 42 positive, 8 negative or no effect

41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 papers →

tillage · disease · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results agree

4 papers: 0 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative
See all 4 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.