Abstract
Natural resources are the most limiting factors for sustainable agriculture in Iran. Traditional practices are intensive tillage that leads to a negative impact on crop productivity and soil properties. Conservation agriculture including tillage reductions, better agronomy, and improved varieties, showed encouraging results. The goal of this study was to test combined effect of tillage practices and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes on soil properties as well as crop and water productivity. The experiment was conducted at Zarghan, Fars, Iran during 2014–2016. Experimental treatments were three-tillage practices—conventional tillage (CT), reduced tillage (RT), and no tillage (NT)—and four wheat genotypes were randomized in the main and subplots, respectively using split-plot randomized complete block design with three replications. Results showed NT had higher soil bulk density at surface soil, thereby lower cumulative water infiltration. The lowest soil organic carbon and total nitrogen were obtained under CT that led to the highest C:N ratio. Reduced tillage produced higher wheat yield and maize (Zea mays L.) biomass. Maximum irrigation water was applied under CT, which leads lower water productivity. The findings are based on short-term results, but it is important to evaluate medium- and long-term effects on soil properties, crop yields and water use in future.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased surface soil bulk density.
Not reportedTaxonOrgan / stageComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed NT had higher soil bulk density at surface soil, thereby lower cumulative water infiltration.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage lowered cumulative water infiltration.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Results showed NT had higher soil bulk density at surface soil, thereby lower cumulative water infiltration.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had the lowest soil organic carbon and total nitrogen.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The lowest soil organic carbon and total nitrogen were obtained under CT that led to the highest C:N ratio.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had the highest C:N ratio.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The lowest soil organic carbon and total nitrogen were obtained under CT that led to the highest C:N ratio.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage increased wheat yield.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- Reduced tillagee0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced tillage produced higher wheat yield and maize (Zea mays L.) biomass.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage increased maize biomass.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reduced tillage produced higher wheat yield and maize (Zea mays L.) biomass.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage used the most irrigation water.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Maximum irrigation water was applied under CT, which leads lower water productivity.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage lowered water productivity.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Maximum irrigation water was applied under CT, which leads lower water productivity.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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
- negative
- 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.