Abstract
Growing a crop in place of fallow may improve soil properties but result in reduced soil water and crop yields in semiarid regions. This study assessed the effect of replacing fallow in no‐till winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–fallow with cover, forage, or grain crops on plant available water (PAW), wheat yield, grain quality, and profitability over 5 yr, from 2007 to 2012. Plant available water at wheat planting was reduced the most when the fallow period was the shortest (i.e., following grain crops) or when biomass production was the greatest. Winter and spring lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik.) produced the least biomass, used the least soil water, and had the least negative effect on yield. For every 125 kg ha −1 of cover or forage biomass grown, PAW was reduced by 1 mm, and for every millimeter of PAW, wheat yield was increased by 5.5 kg ha −1 . There was no difference in wheat yield whether the preceding crop was harvested for forage or left as standing cover. In years with above‐average precipitation, wheat yield was reduced 0 to 34% by growing a crop in place of fallow. However, in years with below‐average precipitation, wheat yield was reduced 40 to 70% without fallow. There was minimal negative impact on wheat yield growing a cover or forage crop in place of fallow if wheat yield potential was 3500 kg ha −1 or greater. Net returns were reduced 50 to 100% by growing a cover crop. However, net returns were increased 26 to 240% by growing a forage crop. Integrating annual forages into the fallow period in semiarid regions has the greatest potential for adoption.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Short fallow or high biomass most reduced plant-available water at wheat planting.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- fallow period was the shorteste0
- Outcome
- Plant available water at wheat plantinge0
- Direction
- reducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e0“Plant available water at wheat planting was reduced the most when the fallow period was the shortest (i.e., following grain crops) or when biomass production was the greatest.”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter and spring lentil produced the least biomass.
- Taxon
- lentil
Lens culinarise0 - Material
- Winter and spring lentile0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- leaste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Winter and spring lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik.) produced the least biomass, used the least soil water, and had the least negative effect on yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter and spring lentil used the least soil water.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Direction
- leaste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Winter and spring lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik.) produced the least biomass, used the least soil water, and had the least negative effect on yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter and spring lentil had the least negative effect on subsequent yield.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- least negativee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Winter and spring lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik.) produced the least biomass, used the least soil water, and had the least negative effect on yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Each 125 kg ha −1 of cover or forage biomass corresponded to 1 mm less plant-available water.
Verbatim
e0“For every 125 kg ha −1 of cover or forage biomass grown, PAW was reduced by 1 mm”
Claim · model-written summary
Each millimeter of plant-available water corresponded to 5.5 kg ha −1 more wheat yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- every millimeter of PAWe0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.5 kg ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e0“for every millimeter of PAW, wheat yield was increased by 5.5 kg ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage harvest and standing cover produced no difference in subsequent wheat yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- harvested for foragee0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- no differencee0
- Comparator
- left as standing covere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference in wheat yield whether the preceding crop was harvested for forage or left as standing cover.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow replacement reduced wheat yield by 0 to 34% in wetter years.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- growing a crop in place of fallowe0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0 to 34%e0
- Qualifier
- above‐average precipitatione0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In years with above‐average precipitation, wheat yield was reduced 0 to 34% by growing a crop in place of fallow.”
Claim · model-written summary
Without fallow, wheat yield fell 40 to 70% in drier years.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- without fallowe0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 40 to 70%e0
- Qualifier
- below‐average precipitatione0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in years with below‐average precipitation, wheat yield was reduced 40 to 70% without fallow.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow replacement had minimal negative yield impact when potential yield reached 3500 kg ha −1.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- growing a cover or forage crop in place of fallowe0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- minimal negativee0
- Qualifier
- 3500 kg ha −1 or greatere0
- Comparator
- fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was minimal negative impact on wheat yield growing a cover or forage crop in place of fallow if wheat yield potential was 3500 kg ha −1 or greater.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover cropping reduced net returns by 50 to 100%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- growing a cover crope0
- Outcome
- Net returnse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50 to 100%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e0“Net returns were reduced 50 to 100% by growing a cover crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage cropping increased net returns by 26 to 240%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- growing a forage crope0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 26 to 240%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e0“net returns were increased 26 to 240% by growing a forage crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual forages were identified as the most adoptable fallow replacement in semiarid regions.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Integrating annual forages into the fallow periode0
- Setting
- semiarid regionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
e0“Integrating annual forages into the fallow period in semiarid regions has the greatest potential for adoption.”
The same questions in other papers
rotation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 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.