Abstract
Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) became one of the most important crops grown in north-eastern Romania. The objectives of this research study refer to creating technological options adapted to local conditions for farmers in the area and assessing tillage effect on soil physical properties and rapeseed yield in three different locations. Soil bulk density (BD), penetration resistance (PR) and hydric stability of aggregates (HS) were determined at different rapeseed fenological stages in moldboard (MT), chisel (CT) and disk-harrow (DT) tillage treatments. No significant differences existed among tillage treatments concerning BD and HS. PR determined at plant full growth was significantly higher in DT in two out of three locations. Yield varied with tillage, with no significant differences between MT and CT, but was lower in DT (p=0.05).
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Soil bulk density did not differ significantly across tillage treatments.
- Taxon
- Brassica napus L.
_Brassica_napus_-_Habit.jpg?width=60)
Brassica napuse1 - Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- BDe0
- Direction
- No significant differencese0
- Comparator
- among tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Brassica_napus_-_Habit.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“No significant differences existed among tillage treatments concerning BD and HS”
e1“Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Aggregate hydric stability did not differ significantly across tillage treatments.
- Taxon
- Brassica napus L.Brassica napuse1
- Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- HSe0
- Direction
- No significant differencese0
- Comparator
- among tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant differences existed among tillage treatments concerning BD and HS”
e1“Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil penetration resistance at full plant growth was higher with disk harrowing in two of three locations.
- Taxon
- Brassica napus L.Brassica napuse1
- Organ / stage
- plant full growthe0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- PRe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- two out of three locationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PR determined at plant full growth was significantly higher in DT in two out of three locations”
e1“Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rape yield did not differ significantly between moldboard and chisel tillage.
- Taxon
- Brassica napus L.Brassica napuse1
- Treatment
- MTe0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield varied with tillage, with no significant differences between MT and CT”
e1“Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rape yield was lower with disk harrowing.
- Taxon
- Brassica napus L.Brassica napuse1
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield varied with tillage, with no significant differences between MT and CT, but was lower in DT (p=0.05)”
e1“Winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.