Paper · 2019 · Agronomy Journal

Seed‐Drill Opener Type and Crop Residue Load Affect Canola Establishment, but Only Residue Load Affects Yield

P.A. Swanepoel; P. J. G. le Roux; G. A. Agenbag; et al.

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
31
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Core Ideas Canola establishment can be affected by the residues of the previous crop. Different planting tools may handle crop residue differently. Tine and disc furrow openers at different residue loads were tested. Canola performed best when established with tine openers and when residue load is low. Handling crop residue during planting operations is a challenge to conservation agriculture (CA) farmers worldwide. It remains unclear which tools are most effective in which conditions. Canola ( Brassica napus L.), an oilseed crop widely used in rotation with cereals, is particularly sensitive to seedbed conditions, and thus may be influenced by residue loads and the choice of seed‐drill openers. To identify optimal planting practices, this study compared the performance of disc and tine openers on canola establishment, growth, and yield under differing residue loads in a Mediterranean‐type climate region. First, soil disturbance caused by disc and tine openers was evaluated to assess their effect on seedbed conditions; and second, the interacting effects of the openers with different residue loads was investigated. Tine openers and low crop residue loads resulted in the best ( P < 0.05) canola establishment. However, canola at reduced plant populations compensated in both biomass and grain yield, so that no yield differences resulted from different opener types, and only small yield differences occurred between residue loads ( P > 0.05).

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tine openers gave the best canola establishment.

Treatment
Tine openerse0
Outcome
canola establishmente0
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Tine openers and low crop residue loads resulted in the best ( P < 0.05) canola establishment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1227 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Low crop residue loads gave the best canola establishment.

Treatment
low crop residue loadse0
Outcome
canola establishmente0
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Tine openers and low crop residue loads resulted in the best ( P < 0.05) canola establishment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1133–1227 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canola at reduced plant populations compensated in biomass and grain yield.

Outcome
biomass and grain yielde0
Direction
compensatede0
Qualifier
reduced plant populationse0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“canola at reduced plant populations compensated in both biomass and grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1237–1316 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Opener types produced no yield differences.

Treatment
different opener typese0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
no yield differencese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no yield differences resulted from different opener types”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1326–1383 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield differences between residue loads were small and not significant.

Treatment
residue loadse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
small yield differencese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“only small yield differences occurred between residue loads ( P > 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1389–1461 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑

organic · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 12 positive, 1 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.