Abstract
PRODUCERS IN THE Bundaberg/Childers and Maryborough districts are implementing various combinations of legume rotations, trash retention, reduced tillage and controlled traffic in new and evolving farming systems. There are challenges in successfully integrating these components. Two trial sites were established to measure the impact of different trash management (maintaining full GCTB, removing some trash via baling and full removal through burning) and tillage (conventional, strip-till and direct drill) techniques on grain legume production, with one site focussed on grain soybean productivity and the other on peanuts. The different tillage systems were reinstituted after harvest of the legume crop during the establishment of the plant cane crop. Impacts of tillage and additional nitrogen application on plant cane productivity were measured. The soybean trial site was established on a farm growing cane in 1.57 m row configuration, and neither trash management nor tillage affected soybean productivity. However there was a trend for lower plant cane productivity with reduced tillage and there was a 13% yield improvement through the application of fertiliser N in a very wet season. In contrast, the peanut trial site was established on a farm growing cane in 1.8 m row spacings. Sugarcane trash management didn't impact on peanut productivity, although yields were lower in reduced tillage treatments. In the following plant cane crop there was no impact of tillage on sugarcane productivity, and there was only a 5% response to N fertiliser application on cane productivity, but not sugar productivity. Data demonstrate that even though soybean productivity was unaffected, unamended soil compaction from the previous cane cycle can limit productivity of both fallow peanut crops and the next cane crop cycle. Further research may be able to improve productivity and harvest efficiency of peanuts in reduced tillage systems. However, it seems clear that appropriate row configurations to control traffic and minimise compaction are imperative to allow successful sugarcane production in reduced tillage farming systems.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Trash management did not affect soybean productivity.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- trash managemente0
- Outcome
- soybean productivitye0
- Direction
- neither trash management nor tillage affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“neither trash management nor tillage affected soybean productivity.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect soybean productivity.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Outcome
- soybean productivitye0
- Direction
- neither trash management nor tillage affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“neither trash management nor tillage affected soybean productivity.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage tended to lower plant cane productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was a trend for lower plant cane productivity with reduced tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertiliser N improved plant cane yield by 13% in a very wet season.
- Taxon
- plant canee0
- Treatment
- application of fertiliser Ne0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Qualifier
- in a very wet seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was a trend for lower plant cane productivity with reduced tillage and there was a 13% yield improvement through the application of fertiliser N in a very wet season”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane trash management did not affect peanut productivity.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- Sugarcane trash managemente0
- Outcome
- peanut productivitye0
- Direction
- didn't impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane trash management didn't impact on peanut productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yields were lower under reduced tillage.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane trash management didn't impact on peanut productivity, although yields were lower in reduced tillage treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect subsequent sugarcane productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was no impact of tillage on sugarcane productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
N fertiliser produced a 5% cane productivity response.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“there was only a 5% response to N fertiliser application on cane productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
N fertiliser had no effect on sugar productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was only a 5% response to N fertiliser application on cane productivity, but not sugar productivity”
t0“sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Unamended soil compaction from the previous cane cycle can limit peanut and subsequent cane productivity.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- productivity of both fallow peanut crops and the next cane crop cyclee0
- Direction
- limite0
- Setting
- previous cane cyclee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“unamended soil compaction from the previous cane cycle can limit productivity of both fallow peanut crops and the next cane crop cycle.”
Claim · model-written summary
Appropriate row configurations to control traffic and minimize compaction are imperative for reduced tillage sugarcane production.
Verbatim
e0“appropriate row configurations to control traffic and minimise compaction are imperative to allow successful sugarcane production in reduced tillage farming systems.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →tillage · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →fertilization · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 312 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
342 papers more in this group
See all 346 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 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.