Abstract
A field experiment near Yass, N.S.W., in 198 1 and 1982 compared several forms of deep tillage (loosening of the soil to depths from 15 to 60 cm, with little surface disturbance) following the application of various herbicides, on the growth and yield of wheat, rape, field peas and weeds. The deep tillage implements used were: Wallace Soil Reconditioning Unit, Domino Sub Tiller, and single tine ripper, cultivating to depths from 15 to 60 cm. The herbicides used were: glyphosate (Roundup at 1 L/ha), paraquat-diquat (Sprayseed at 2 L/ha) and paraquat-diquat (Sprayseed at 2 L/ha) plus dicamba (Banvel 200 at 0.4 Wha). A fallow treatment also was used in 1982. Crops, and weeds-which were a mixture of grass and broad-leaf species-responded more strongly to herbicide than to deep tillage treatments. At the rates used, paraquat-diquat plus dicamba controlled cereals more efficiently than did the other herbicides. The responses were generally increased growth of wheat and rape-field peas being much less responsive-and decreased growth of weeds. In 198 1, a year of average rainfall, herbicide (meaned over deep tillage treatments) increased wheat grain yield by 1.94 t/ha (1.8 1 v. 3.75 t/ha) and deep tillage (meaned over herbicide treatments) by 0.60 t/ha (2.81 v. 3.41 t/ha). In 1982, a year of below-average rainfall, fallow increased wheat grain yield by 1.67 t/ha (0.18 v. 1.85 t/ha), herbicide by 0.73 t/ha (0.18 v. 0.91 t/ha) and deep tillage by 0.36 t/ha (0.69 v. 1.05 t/ha). Covariance analyses indicated that, for all wheat crop parameters measured in 198 1, responses to both deep tillage and herbicide were strongly related to reduction in weed top growth, this effect being greater with the herbicide treatments than with the deep tillage treatments.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Crops and weeds responded more strongly to herbicide than tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Crops, and weeds-which were a mixture of grass and broad-leaf species-responded more strongly to herbicide than to deep tillage treatments”
t0“wheat, rape, and field peas”
Claim · model-written summary
Paraquat-diquat plus dicamba controlled cereals more efficiently than other herbicides.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- paraquat-diquat plus dicambae0
- Outcome
- controlled cerealse0
- Direction
- more efficientlye0
- Comparator
- other herbicidese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“paraquat-diquat plus dicamba controlled cereals more efficiently than did the other herbicides”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat growth increased.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The responses were generally increased growth of wheat and rape-field peas being much less responsive-and decreased growth of weeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Rape growth increased.
- Taxon
- rape
_Brassica_napus_-_Habit.jpg?width=60)
Brassica napuse0 - Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Brassica_napus_-_Habit.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The responses were generally increased growth of wheat and rape-field peas being much less responsive-and decreased growth of weeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Field peas were less responsive than wheat and rape.
Verbatim
e0“wheat and rape-field peas being much less responsive”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed growth decreased.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- growth of weedse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased growth of weeds”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide increased 1981 wheat yield by 1.94 t/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- herbicidee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.94 t/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“herbicide (meaned over deep tillage treatments) increased wheat grain yield by 1.94 t/ha (1.8 1 v. 3.75 t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased 1981 wheat yield by 0.60 t/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Value
- 0.60 t/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deep tillage (meaned over herbicide treatments) by 0.60 t/ha (2.81 v. 3.41 t/ha)”
t0“wheat”
e1“herbicide (meaned over deep tillage treatments) increased wheat grain yield by 1.94 t/ha (1.8 1 v. 3.75 t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow increased 1982 wheat yield by 1.67 t/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- fallowe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.67 t/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fallow increased wheat grain yield by 1.67 t/ha (0.18 v. 1.85 t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide increased 1982 wheat yield by 0.73 t/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- herbicidee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Value
- 0.73 t/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“herbicide by 0.73 t/ha (0.18 v. 0.91 t/ha)”
t0“wheat”
e1“fallow increased wheat grain yield by 1.67 t/ha (0.18 v. 1.85 t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased 1982 wheat yield by 0.36 t/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Value
- 0.36 t/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deep tillage by 0.36 t/ha (0.69 v. 1.05 t/ha)”
t0“wheat”
e1“fallow increased wheat grain yield by 1.67 t/ha (0.18 v. 1.85 t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat responses to both treatments were related to reduced weed top growth.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- deep tillage and herbicidee0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- wheat crop parameterse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for all wheat crop parameters measured in 198 1, responses to both deep tillage and herbicide were strongly related to reduction in weed top growth”
The same questions in other papers
dicamba · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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
- negative
- negative
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 papers →herbicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
465 papers in the same direction as this paper · 87 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
559 papers more in this group
See all 563 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
- negative
- negative
- 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.