Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of conventional tillage with straw removed (T), no tillage with straw removed (NT), no tillage with straw retained on the soil surface (NTS) and conventional tillage with straw incorporated (TS) on soil moisture, root growth and straw yield under rain-fed conditions. Findings of this research show that NTS and to a lesser extent, TS decreased soil bulk density in the 0-10 cm soil depth by approximately 3.35% and 2.75% compared to T and NT in spring wheat and field pea plots respectively. No tillage with straw retained (NTS) had greater soil moisture content (0-30 cm) at jointing, anthesis and milking stages compared with NT and T treatments with average 18.57% and 29.67% increase (P < 0.05) in spring wheat and field pea respectively. Compared with T and NT, root length, root surface area, root diameter and root volume at 0-50 cm soil depth under straw treated soils, especially with no tillage were significantly increased. Root length, surface area and root diameter in the 0-80 cm differed among the treatments in the order of NTS > TS > NT > T at all the sampling stages in both crops. No tillage with straw retention had the greatest straw yield of 4897 kg ha-1 in spring wheat and 2759 kg ha-1 in field pea, representing a significant increase of 20.61% and 22.74% compared to NT and T respectively. These results suggest that NTS could enhance spring wheat and field pea yield and water uptake via stimulating root growth, and therefore a practical way to improve crop productivity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
NTS decreased soil bulk density by about 3.35% in spring wheat plots relative to T and NT.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- NTSe0
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 3.35%e0
- Qualifier
- 0-10 cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- T and NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTS and to a lesser extent, TS decreased soil bulk density in the 0-10 cm soil depth by approximately 3.35% and 2.75% compared to T and NT in spring wheat and field pea plots respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
TS decreased soil bulk density by about 2.75% in field pea plots relative to T and NT.
Verbatim
e0“NTS and to a lesser extent, TS decreased soil bulk density in the 0-10 cm soil depth by approximately 3.35% and 2.75% compared to T and NT in spring wheat and field pea plots respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS increased spring wheat plot soil moisture by 18.57% relative to NT and T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- No tillage with straw retained (NTS)e0
- Outcome
- soil moisture contente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 18.57%e0
- Comparator
- NT and T treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage with straw retained (NTS) had greater soil moisture content (0-30 cm) at jointing, anthesis and milking stages compared with NT and T treatments with average 18.57% and 29.67% increase (P < 0.05) in spring wheat and field pea respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS increased field pea plot soil moisture by 29.67% relative to NT and T.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage with straw retained (NTS) had greater soil moisture content (0-30 cm) at jointing, anthesis and milking stages compared with NT and T treatments with average 18.57% and 29.67% increase (P < 0.05) in spring wheat and field pea respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw-treated soils, especially with no tillage, significantly increased wheat root length, surface area and diameter versus T and NT.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- straw treated soils, especially with no tillagee0
- Outcome
- root length, root surface area, root diametere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- T and NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T and NT, root length, root surface area, root diameter and root volume at 0-50 cm soil depth under straw treated soils, especially with no tillage were significantly increased.”
t0“Conservation Tillage Practices Optimizes Root Distribution and Straw Yield of Spring Wheat and Field Pea in Dry Areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw-treated soils, especially with no tillage, significantly increased field pea root length, surface area and diameter versus T and NT.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T and NT, root length, root surface area, root diameter and root volume at 0-50 cm soil depth under straw treated soils, especially with no tillage were significantly increased.”
t0“Conservation Tillage Practices Optimizes Root Distribution and Straw Yield of Spring Wheat and Field Pea in Dry Areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw-treated soils, especially with no tillage, significantly increased wheat root volume versus T and NT.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- straw treated soils, especially with no tillagee0
- Outcome
- root volumee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- T and NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T and NT, root length, root surface area, root diameter and root volume at 0-50 cm soil depth under straw treated soils, especially with no tillage were significantly increased.”
t0“Conservation Tillage Practices Optimizes Root Distribution and Straw Yield of Spring Wheat and Field Pea in Dry Areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw-treated soils, especially with no tillage, significantly increased pea root volume versus T and NT.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T and NT, root length, root surface area, root diameter and root volume at 0-50 cm soil depth under straw treated soils, especially with no tillage were significantly increased.”
t0“Conservation Tillage Practices Optimizes Root Distribution and Straw Yield of Spring Wheat and Field Pea in Dry Areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat root length, surface area and diameter ranked NTS above TS above NT above T across sampling stages.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Root length, surface area and root diametere0
- Direction
- NTS > TS > NT > Te0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root length, surface area and root diameter in the 0-80 cm differed among the treatments in the order of NTS > TS > NT > T at all the sampling stages in both crops.”
t0“Conservation Tillage Practices Optimizes Root Distribution and Straw Yield of Spring Wheat and Field Pea in Dry Areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Field pea root length, surface area and diameter ranked NTS above TS above NT above T across sampling stages.
Verbatim
e0“Root length, surface area and root diameter in the 0-80 cm differed among the treatments in the order of NTS > TS > NT > T at all the sampling stages in both crops.”
t0“Conservation Tillage Practices Optimizes Root Distribution and Straw Yield of Spring Wheat and Field Pea in Dry Areas”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS yielded 4897 kg ha-1 of wheat straw, a significant 20.61% increase relative to NT.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- No tillage with straw retentione0
- Outcome
- straw yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 20.61%e0
- Qualifier
- 4897 kg ha-1e0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage with straw retention had the greatest straw yield of 4897 kg ha-1 in spring wheat and 2759 kg ha-1 in field pea, representing a significant increase of 20.61% and 22.74% compared to NT and T respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS yielded 2759 kg ha-1 of field pea straw, a significant 22.74% increase relative to T.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage with straw retention had the greatest straw yield of 4897 kg ha-1 in spring wheat and 2759 kg ha-1 in field pea, representing a significant increase of 20.61% and 22.74% compared to NT and T respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose NTS as a practical way to improve wheat productivity by promoting roots and water uptake.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTSe0
- Outcome
- improve crop productivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTS could enhance spring wheat and field pea yield and water uptake via stimulating root growth, and therefore a practical way to improve crop productivity.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose NTS as a practical way to improve field pea productivity by promoting roots and water uptake.
Verbatim
e0“NTS could enhance spring wheat and field pea yield and water uptake via stimulating root growth, and therefore a practical way to improve crop productivity.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →tillage · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →tillage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 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 →tillage · quality: grain · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.