Abstract
Yield and nitrogen (N)-content in wheat was studied under applied treatments of crop residues (legume vs. cereal), tillage depths (deep vs. shallow) and N-fertilizer rates (0, 40, 80, 120 and 160 kg ha−1) at wheat-maize cropping systems. Experiments were conducted at Agronomy Research farm, the University of Agriculture, Peshawar Pakistan, during winter season 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 crop growth seasons. Well-chopped crop residues (5 t ha−1) on dry matter basis of legume (Vigna unguicuata) and cereal (Zea mays) were applied to soil and subsequently plowed with mold-board plow as deep tillage (DT) and cultivator as shallow tillage (ST) treatment (main plot treatments). A month after residue and tillage application, seedbed was prepared and wheat was planted with drill in rows 25 cm apart in middle of November each year. Phosphorus and potassium were applied uniformly 80 and 40 kg ha−1, respectively during seedbed preparation. N-fertilizer rates were applied in two splits: half 15 days after sowing (DAS) and other half 45 DAS (sub-plot treatment). Uniform cultural practices were applied during crop growth and development. Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield. Likewise, shallow tillage proved better than deep tillage system for LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, REAN, NUE, GNU and grain yield. Increased N-fertilizer from control onwards showed significant (p > 0.05) increments in LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, N-uptake and grain yield. Treatments interaction was also found significant (p > 0.05). Study suggested, regardless of the given treatments, GNU and grain yield were in strong positive linear relationship. Legume residue incorporated shallow out yielded GNU and NUE of spring wheat in wheat-maize cropping system. It is concluded that LR and ST with 120 kg N ha−1 ensures production of good wheat quantity and quality.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave better LBA, LAA and SNC than cereal residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Organ / stage
- leaf bladee0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC)e0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- cereale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave better GNC, GNU and CNR than cereal residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR)e0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- cereale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave better REAN and NUE than cereal residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE)e0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- cereale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave better grain yield than cereal residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- cereale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave lower LBA, LAA and SNC than no residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- no-residue treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave lower GNC, GNU and CNR than no residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- no-residue treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave lower REAN and NUE than no residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- no-residue treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume residue gave lower grain yield than no residue in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Legumes residues amendmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- no-residue treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Legumes residues amendments showed better responses than cereal but lower than no-residue treatment for N-content in leaf blade before anthesis (LBA), after anthesis (LAA), straw N-content (SNC), grain N-content (GNC), grain N-uptake (GNU), crop N-removal (CNR), recovery efficiency of added nitrogen (REAN), N-use efficiency (NUE), grain N-uptake (GNU) and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow tillage gave better LBA, LAA and SNC than deep tillage in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- shallow tillagee1
- Outcome
- LBA, LAA, SNCe1
- Direction
- bettere1
- Comparator
- deep tillage systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Likewise, shallow tillage proved better than deep tillage system for LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, REAN, NUE, GNU and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow tillage gave better GNC, GNU and CNR than deep tillage in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- shallow tillagee1
- Outcome
- GNC, GNU, CNRe1
- Direction
- bettere1
- Comparator
- deep tillage systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Likewise, shallow tillage proved better than deep tillage system for LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, REAN, NUE, GNU and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow tillage gave better REAN and NUE than deep tillage in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- shallow tillagee1
- Outcome
- REAN, NUEe1
- Direction
- bettere1
- Comparator
- deep tillage systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Likewise, shallow tillage proved better than deep tillage system for LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, REAN, NUE, GNU and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow tillage gave better grain yield than deep tillage in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- shallow tillagee1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- bettere1
- Comparator
- deep tillage systeme1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Likewise, shallow tillage proved better than deep tillage system for LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, REAN, NUE, GNU and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased N-fertilizer from control significantly increased LBA, LAA and SNC in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Increased N-fertilizer from control onwardse2
- Outcome
- LBA, LAA, SNCe2
- Direction
- incrementse2
- Qualifier
- p > 0.05e2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Increased N-fertilizer from control onwards showed significant (p > 0.05) increments in LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, N-uptake and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased N-fertilizer from control significantly increased GNC, GNU and CNR in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Increased N-fertilizer from control onwardse2
- Outcome
- GNC, GNU, CNRe2
- Direction
- incrementse2
- Qualifier
- p > 0.05e2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Increased N-fertilizer from control onwards showed significant (p > 0.05) increments in LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, N-uptake and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased N-fertilizer from control significantly increased N-uptake and grain yield in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Increased N-fertilizer from control onwardse2
- Outcome
- N-uptake and grain yielde2
- Direction
- incrementse2
- Qualifier
- p > 0.05e2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Increased N-fertilizer from control onwards showed significant (p > 0.05) increments in LBA, LAA, SNC, GNC, GNU, CNR, N-uptake and grain yield”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatments interaction was significant in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Treatments interactione3
- Qualifier
- p > 0.05e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Treatments interaction was also found significant (p > 0.05)”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
GNU and grain yield were in a strong positive linear relationship regardless of the treatments in spring wheat.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- the given treatmentse4
- Outcome
- GNU and grain yielde4
- Direction
- positivee4
- Qualifier
- strong positive linear relationshipe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Study suggested, regardless of the given treatments, GNU and grain yield were in strong positive linear relationship”
t0“irrigated spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
LR and ST with 120 kg N per hectare ensure production of good wheat quantity and quality.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume5
- Treatment
- LR and ST with 120 kg N ha−1e5
- Outcome
- production of good wheat quantity and qualitye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“It is concluded that LR and ST with 120 kg N ha−1 ensures production of good wheat quantity and quality”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · phenology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →other · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →nitrogen · phenology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →other · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
63 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
118 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
141 papers more in this group
See all 145 papers →other · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
205 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
219 papers more in this group
See all 223 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
409 papers in the same direction as this paper · 64 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
475 papers more in this group
See all 479 papers →8 of 11 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.