Abstract
Abstract This research is aimed at studying the influence of no-till technology on the cultivation of Sorghum bicolor using a complex biological substance in comparison with traditional technology. Such parameters as growth and development of plants, yield, the quality of crops based on the quality of previous winter barely crops are considered. The research was carried out in 2016–2018 during a stationary experiment in the steppe of Crimea. The soil of an experimental plot is represented by a mycelial-calcareous black soil. The plough layer contains 4.4 mg of movable phosphates and 39.1 mg of exchangeable potassium per 100 g of soil. The weighted pH average is 7.5. The climate of the steppe agroclimatic region is extremely continental. The annual precipitation is 413 mm. The annual temperature is 10.4 °C. The yield of sorghum cultivated with traditional methods was 1.51 t/ha and 1.44 t/ha in the case of no-till technology (the least significant difference (0.5) is 0.21 t/ha). That means there is no decrease in yield in terms of direct seeding. Despite the lack of tilling in case of direct seeding, the yield is on the same level with both techniques. The use of a complex biological substance increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha. The inoculation of seeds in the case of no-till technique helped to positively increase the yield by 0.22 t/ha in comparison with classic technology. In the case of traditional methods, the inoculation of seeds in the biological substance didn’t impact the yield. The mass fraction of ash varied depending on the studied variants from 2.40% to 2.58%, which didn’t provide a positive increase in this parameter. The traditional method, accompanied by the use of a microbial substance, gave a positive increase in the mass fraction of protein by 1.34% in comparison with a control sample and by 1.66% in comparison with direct seeding, accompanied by inoculation. The content of crude fat varied between 3.34% and 4.43%. In the case of no-till + inoculation, this parameter is 0.53% higher than in the case of no-till without inoculation. The traditional seeding with and without inoculation positively decreased the content of crude fat in comparison with direct seeding.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
No-till sorghum yielded 1.44 t/ha versus 1.51 t/ha with traditional cultivation; the authors reported no decrease.
- Treatment
- no-till technologye0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no decreasee0
- Value
- 1.44 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 1.51 t/hae0
- Comparator
- traditional methodse0
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield of sorghum cultivated with traditional methods was 1.51 t/ha and 1.44 t/ha in the case of no-till technology (the least significant difference (0.5) is 0.21 t/ha). That means there is no decrease in yield in terms of direct seeding”
Claim · model-written summary
A complex biological substance increased sorghum yield by 0.11 t/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use of a complex biological substance increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed inoculation under no-till increased sorghum yield by 0.22 t/ha relative to classic technology.
- Treatment
- inoculation of seeds in the case of no-till techniquee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 0.22 t/hae0
- Comparator
- classic technologye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The inoculation of seeds in the case of no-till technique helped to positively increase the yield by 0.22 t/ha in comparison with classic technology”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Under traditional cultivation, seed inoculation did not affect sorghum yield.
- Treatment
- inoculation of seeds in the biological substancee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- didn’t impacte0
- Comparator
- traditional methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of traditional methods, the inoculation of seeds in the biological substance didn’t impact the yield”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum ash fraction varied from 2.40% to 2.58% across variants without a positive increase.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mass fraction of ash varied depending on the studied variants from 2.40% to 2.58%, which didn’t provide a positive increase in this parameter”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional cultivation with microbial substance increased sorghum protein fraction by 1.34% relative to control.
- Treatment
- traditional method, accompanied by the use of a microbial substancee0
- Outcome
- mass fraction of proteine0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 1.34%e0
- Comparator
- control samplee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The traditional method, accompanied by the use of a microbial substance, gave a positive increase in the mass fraction of protein by 1.34% in comparison with a control sample”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional cultivation with microbial substance increased sorghum protein fraction by 1.66% relative to inoculated direct seeding.
- Treatment
- traditional method, accompanied by the use of a microbial substancee0
- Outcome
- mass fraction of proteine0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 1.66%e0
- Comparator
- direct seeding, accompanied by inoculatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The traditional method, accompanied by the use of a microbial substance, gave a positive increase in the mass fraction of protein by 1.34% in comparison with a control sample and by 1.66% in comparison with direct seeding, accompanied by inoculation”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum crude fat content ranged from 3.34% to 4.43%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The content of crude fat varied between 3.34% and 4.43%”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till plus inoculation had 0.53% more sorghum crude fat than no-till without inoculation.
- Treatment
- no-till + inoculatione0
- Outcome
- content of crude fate1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.53%e0
- Comparator
- no-till without inoculatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the case of no-till + inoculation, this parameter is 0.53% higher than in the case of no-till without inoculation”
e1“The content of crude fat varied between 3.34% and 4.43%”
e2“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional seeding with or without inoculation reduced sorghum crude fat relative to direct seeding.
- Treatment
- traditional seeding with and without inoculatione0
- Outcome
- content of crude fate0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- direct seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The traditional seeding with and without inoculation positively decreased the content of crude fat in comparison with direct seeding”
e1“increased the yield of sorghum by 0.11 t/ha”
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
- negative
- negative
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 papers →inoculation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 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.