Paper · 2012 · Journal of Irrigation and Drainage

Effects of Conservation Tillage on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Field Pea and Spring Wheat

Liu Ji-rui

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

This paper mainly studies the yield and water use efficiency(WUE) of spring wheat and field pea under conservation tillages with different covered ways.Spring wheat and field pea was intercroppinged in fields respectively treated with tillage(T or CK),no-tillage with straw(NTS),no-tillage without straw(NT),tillage with straw(TS),tillage with plastic mulching(TP) and no-tillage with plastic mulching(NTP).During growth stage,we investigated growth period,seedling number,dry matter,soil moisture,yield,and analysised the data.WUE and harvest index(HI) under plastic mulching treatments(TP and NTP) were significantly higher than that of T,TS,NTS and NT.However,as for seedling number and dry matter at early stages,TP and NTP were lower than T,TS,NTS and NT.Plastic mulching and planting along sides are better conservation tillage in western semi-arid areas of Loess Plateau.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plastic mulching increased WUE in spring wheat and field pea relative to other tillage treatments.

Taxon
Field Pea and Spring Wheatt0
Treatment
plastic mulching treatments(TP and NTP)e0
Outcome
WUEe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
T,TS,NTS and NTe0

Verbatim

e0

“WUE and harvest index(HI) under plastic mulching treatments(TP and NTP) were significantly higher than that of T,TS,NTS and NT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–654 · show in text ↑
t0

“Field Pea and Spring Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plastic mulching increased harvest index relative to other tillage treatments.

Taxon
Field Pea and Spring Wheatt0
Treatment
plastic mulching treatments(TP and NTP)e0
Outcome
harvest index(HI)e0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
T,TS,NTS and NTe0

Verbatim

e0

“WUE and harvest index(HI) under plastic mulching treatments(TP and NTP) were significantly higher than that of T,TS,NTS and NT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–654 · show in text ↑
t0

“Field Pea and Spring Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plastic mulching lowered early seedling number compared with the other treatments.

Taxon
Field Pea and Spring Wheatt0
Treatment
TP and NTPe0
Outcome
seedling numbere0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
early stagese0
Comparator
T,TS,NTS and NTe0

Verbatim

e0

“as for seedling number and dry matter at early stages,TP and NTP were lower than T,TS,NTS and NT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 663–759 · show in text ↑
t0

“Field Pea and Spring Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plastic mulching lowered early dry matter compared with the other treatments.

Taxon
Field Pea and Spring Wheatt0
Treatment
TP and NTPe0
Outcome
dry mattere0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
early stagese0
Comparator
T,TS,NTS and NTe0

Verbatim

e0

“as for seedling number and dry matter at early stages,TP and NTP were lower than T,TS,NTS and NT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 663–759 · show in text ↑
t0

“Field Pea and Spring Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–95 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Plastic mulching and planting along sides were recommended for the western semi-arid Loess Plateau.

Taxon
Field Pea and Spring Wheatt0
Outcome
Plastic mulching and planting along sidese0
Setting
western semi-arid areas of Loess Plateaue0

Verbatim

e0

“Plastic mulching and planting along sides are better conservation tillage in western semi-arid areas of Loess Plateau”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 760–877 · show in text ↑
t0

“Field Pea and Spring Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–95 · show in text ↑

mulching · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

44 papers: 41 positive, 3 negative or no effect

40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

117 papers: 97 positive, 20 negative or no effect

96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

113 papers more in this group

See all 117 papers →

mulching · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)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 →

tillage · physiology: water · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

mulching · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 10 positive, 4 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

tillage · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 12 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

mulching · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

64 papers: 58 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 58 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 papers →

tillage · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

69 papers: 53 positive, 16 negative or no effect

52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

65 papers more in this group

See all 69 papers →

8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.