Paper · 1982 · Australian Journal of Agricultural Research

Effects of residues of crop plants on germination and early growth of wheat

JV Lovett; RS Jessop

7
claims
13
verbatim quotes
41
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In experiments conducted under controlled and field conditions residues of a range of crop plants were found to affect germination, emergence, height of the coleoptile and length of the longest seminal root of wheat. Rape and some leguminous crops exerted the greatest phytotoxic effects. Phytotoxicity was increased when crop residues were incorporated into soil rather than being left on the surface. The phytotoxins did not kill the test species, but it is argued that their effects would disadvantage such a species under field conditions and that instances of such effects are likely to increase as the practices of minimal tillage and stubble retention become more widely adopted.

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 resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crop residues affected wheat germination, emergence, coleoptile height and seminal root length.

Treatment
residues of a range of crop plantse0
Outcome
germination, emergence, height of the coleoptilee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“residues of a range of crop plants were found to affect germination, emergence, height of the coleoptile and length of the longest seminal root of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 63–215 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rape residues had the greatest phytotoxic effects.

Treatment
Rapee0
Outcome
phytotoxic effectse0
Direction
greateste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rape and some leguminous crops exerted the greatest phytotoxic effects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–287 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Some leguminous crop residues had the greatest phytotoxic effects.

Treatment
some leguminous cropse0
Outcome
phytotoxic effectse0
Direction
greateste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rape and some leguminous crops exerted the greatest phytotoxic effects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–287 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Incorporating residues into soil increased phytotoxicity compared with leaving them on the surface.

Treatment
crop residues were incorporated into soile0
Outcome
Phytotoxicitye0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
being left on the surfacee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phytotoxicity was increased when crop residues were incorporated into soil rather than being left on the surface”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 289–401 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The phytotoxins did not kill the test species.

Outcome
did not kill the test speciese0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The phytotoxins did not kill the test species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 403–448 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors argue that phytotoxin effects would disadvantage wheat in fields.

Outcome
disadvantage such a speciese0
Qualifier
under field conditionse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“their effects would disadvantage such a species under field conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 472–542 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors expect these effects to become more frequent as minimal tillage and stubble retention expand.

Treatment
minimal tillage and stubble retentione0
Outcome
instances of such effectse0
Direction
increasee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“instances of such effects are likely to increase as the practices of minimal tillage and stubble retention become more widely adopted”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 552–685 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–75 · show in text ↑

organic · crop injury · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 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.