Abstract
Core Ideas Average sorghum yield advantage was 120% for no tillage over conventional tillage and 55% for reduced tillage over conventional tillage. Average wheat yield advantage was 31% for no tillage over conventional tillage and 12% for reduced tillage over conventional tillage. Available soil water at planting in soil profile was less for conventional tillage than both no tillage and reduced tillage for both crops. There was a decline in wheat yield over time due to increased seasonal temperature. Tillage is among crop management factors that affect yield, profitability, and environmental quality. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of three long‐term tillage intensities; conventional tillage (CT), reduced tillage (RT), and no‐till (NT), on winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) and grain sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L.) yield, available soil water (ASW), and water productivity. The study was conducted near Tribune, KS, from 1991 through 2015 in a wheat–sorghum–fallow (WSF) rotation. The CT plots were tilled (primarily with a sweep plow), on average, four to five times per fallow season; NT plots used herbicides for weed control during fallow. The RT plots used a combination of herbicides and tillage for weed control during fallow prior to both crops for years 1991 to 2000; and, for the years 2001 to 2015, the RT system was NT before sorghum planting (short‐term NT) and CT before wheat planting. On average, there was a 31% wheat yield advantage for NT over CT, 16% NT over RT, and 12% RT over CT. On average, there was a 120% sorghum yield advantage for NT over CT, 41% NT over RT, and 55% RT over CT. Sorghum yields were 80% greater for continuous NT compared with short‐term NT (2001–2015 RT). The average of profile ASW at planting was less for CT compared with NT and RT. There was a significant yield and water productivity benefit in the order NT > RT > CT for both crops, but greater for sorghum than wheat.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
No-till gave a 31% wheat yield advantage over conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Winter Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- wheat yielde1
- Direction
- advantagee1
- Value
- 31%e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e1“On average, there was a 31% wheat yield advantage for NT over CT, 16% NT over RT, and 12% RT over CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till gave a 16% wheat yield advantage over reduced tillage.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- wheat yielde1
- Direction
- advantagee1
- Value
- 16%e1
- Comparator
- RTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e1“On average, there was a 31% wheat yield advantage for NT over CT, 16% NT over RT, and 12% RT over CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage gave a 12% wheat yield advantage over conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- RTe1
- Outcome
- wheat yielde1
- Direction
- advantagee1
- Value
- 12%e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e1“On average, there was a 31% wheat yield advantage for NT over CT, 16% NT over RT, and 12% RT over CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till gave a 120% sorghum yield advantage over conventional tillage.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e2“On average, there was a 120% sorghum yield advantage for NT over CT, 41% NT over RT, and 55% RT over CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till gave a 41% sorghum yield advantage over reduced tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e2“On average, there was a 120% sorghum yield advantage for NT over CT, 41% NT over RT, and 55% RT over CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage gave a 55% sorghum yield advantage over conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e2“On average, there was a 120% sorghum yield advantage for NT over CT, 41% NT over RT, and 55% RT over CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum yields were 80% greater under continuous no-till.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e3“Sorghum yields were 80% greater for continuous NT”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yield declined over time, which the authors attribute to increased seasonal temperature.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- seasonal temperaturee4
- Outcome
- wheat yielde4
- Direction
- declinee4
- Qualifier
- due to increased seasonal temperaturee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e4“There was a decline in wheat yield over time due to increased seasonal temperature”
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil water at planting was less under conventional tillage than under no-till and reduced tillage for both crops.
- Taxon
- Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat
Sorghum bicolorTriticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- conventional tillagee5
- Outcome
- Available soil water at plantinge5
- Direction
- lesse5
- Comparator
- no tillage and reduced tillagee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e5“Available soil water at planting in soil profile was less for conventional tillage than both no tillage and reduced tillage for both crops”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till, reduced and conventional tillage ranked NT > RT > CT for yield and water productivity benefit in both crops, greater for sorghum than wheat.
- Taxon
- Grain Sorghum and Winter WheatSorghum bicolorTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NT > RT > CTe6
- Outcome
- yield and water productivitye6
- Direction
- benefite6
- Qualifier
- greater for sorghum than wheate6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grain Sorghum and Winter Wheat”
e6“There was a significant yield and water productivity benefit in the order NT > RT > CT for both crops, but greater for sorghum than wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 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
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.