Paper · 2018 · PLoS ONE

Weed responses to fallow management in Pacific Northwest dryland cropping systems

Carolina San Martín; Dan S. Long; Jennifer A. Gourlie; et al.

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
12
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A two-year rotation of summer fallow (SF)/winter wheat (WW) is the most common cropping system in low precipitation areas of the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW). In SF, multiple tillage operations are used to manage weeds and maximize soil water storage and potential WW yield. Reduced tillage fallow (RTF) is an alternative to SF that leaves >30% of the previous crop's residue on the surface. A four-year (2014-18) field study was conducted to evaluate the influence of SF and RTF on weed species density, cover and composition in dryland WW; determine if changes in these weed infestation attributes have any influence on crop density and yield; and evaluate economic costs of each type of fallow management. The experimental design was randomized complete block with four replications where each phase of SF/WW and RTF/WW rotations was present every year. Individual plots of WW were divided into a weedy sub-plot with no weed control, general area with chemical weed control, and weed-free sub-plot where weeds were manually removed. Infestations of annual grass and other weeds in weedy sub-plots increased throughout the study. Grass weed cover, consisting mainly of downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.), and total weed cover were significantly lower in WW following RTF than following SF in all years except 2018. Densities of grass and total weeds were similar in both fallow managements indicating that weed plants were larger in WW following SF than following RTF due to earlier or faster emergence. Grass cover differences were not found in general areas likely because of a reduced seedbank. When weeds were present, mean yield of WW was higher following RTF than SF indicating that weeds were less competitive in RTF. Reduced tillage fallow could improve weed management in fallow/WW cropping systems of the PNW compared to SF/WW, particularly if the most problematic species are grasses.

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Annual grass and other weed infestations increased over the study.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Interactor
annual grass and other weedse0weed
Outcome
Infestations of annual grass and other weedse0
Direction
increasede0
Setting
weedy sub-plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Infestations of annual grass and other weeds in weedy sub-plots increased throughout the study.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1036–1131 · show in text ↑
e1

“winter wheat (WW)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 42–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Grass weed cover was lower after reduced tillage fallow except in 2018.

Taxon
WWe0
Treatment
RTFe0
Interactor
downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.)Bromus tectorume0weed
Outcome
Grass weed covere0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
in all years except 2018e0
Comparator
SFe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Bromus tectorum
Bromus tectorum · InteractorAnRo0002 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grass weed cover, consisting mainly of downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.), and total weed cover were significantly lower in WW following RTF than following SF in all years except 2018.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1314 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Total weed cover was lower after reduced tillage fallow except in 2018.

Taxon
WWe0
Treatment
RTFe0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
total weed covere0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
in all years except 2018e0
Comparator
SFe0

Verbatim

e0

“Grass weed cover, consisting mainly of downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.), and total weed cover were significantly lower in WW following RTF than following SF in all years except 2018.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1314 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grass and total weed densities were similar under the two fallow systems.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume1
Treatment
both fallow managementse0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
Densities of grass and total weedse0
Direction
similare0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Densities of grass and total weeds were similar in both fallow managements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1315–1389 · show in text ↑
e1

“summer fallow (SF)/winter wheat (WW)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 23–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With weeds present, wheat yield was higher after reduced tillage fallow.

Taxon
WWe0
Treatment
RTFe0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
mean yield of WWe0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
When weeds were presente0
Comparator
SFe0

Verbatim

e0

“When weeds were present, mean yield of WW was higher following RTF than SF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1598–1672 · show in text ↑

rotation · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

37 papers: 19 positive, 18 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 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.