Abstract
Productivity is low and unstable in dryland farms of central Gansu, Northwest China. Conservational tillage is an important way for the sustainable development of agriculture. The effects of different tillage measures on soil moisture infiltration, evaporation, crop yield and water use efficiency (WUE) were investigated in this study based on a long-term experiment since 2001 in Longzhong. There were six treatments, i.e. conventional tillage with no straw (T), no-till with straw cover (NTS), no-till with no straw cover (NT), conventional tillage with straw incorporated (TS), conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP), and no-till with plastic mulch (NTP), with annual rotation of spring wheat and pea. The results showed that compared with T, soil bulk density of NTS decreased and total porosity of soil increased significantly in wheat and pea land. Compared with conventional tillage, conservation tillage reduced soil infiltration rate in 0-5 cm in the pea field by 56.2%. Conservational tillage siginificantly increased soil saturated water conductivity in both wheat and pea lands. Compared with T, the saturated water conductivity in NTS was significantly increased by 52.8%-107.1%. Conservational tillage siginificantly reduced soil evaporation during growing season. Compared with T, the evapotranspiration of NTP, TP and NTS was significantly reduced by 14.4%-50.8%. The soil evaporation after rain was also decreased. Conservational tillage improved crop yield and water use efficiency by 9.5%-62.8% and 0.4%-50.9%, respectively. Therefore, conservational tillage could increase water use efficiency and crop yield in dryland farming area of central Gansu, Northwest China.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with straw cover decreased soil bulk density in wheat and pea land versus conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and pea
Lathyrus oleraceus
Triticum aestivume3 - Treatment
- no-till with straw covere1
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with T, soil bulk density of NTS decreased and total porosity of soil increased significantly in wheat and pea land”
e1“no-till with straw cover (NTS)”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e3“spring wheat and pea”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till with straw cover increased soil total porosity in wheat and pea land versus conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- no-till with straw covere1
- Outcome
- total porosity of soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with T, soil bulk density of NTS decreased and total porosity of soil increased significantly in wheat and pea land”
e1“no-till with straw cover (NTS)”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e3“spring wheat and pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage reduced 0–5 cm soil infiltration rate by 56.2% in the pea field.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse0
- Treatment
- conservation tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil infiltration ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 56.2%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional tillage, conservation tillage reduced soil infiltration rate in 0-5 cm in the pea field by 56.2%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservational tillage increased saturated water conductivity in wheat and pea land.
- Taxon
- wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Conservational tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil saturated water conductivitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservational tillage siginificantly increased soil saturated water conductivity in both wheat and pea lands”
e1“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS increased saturated water conductivity by 52.8%-107.1% versus T.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- no-till with straw covere1
- Outcome
- saturated water conductivitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 52.8%-107.1%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T, the saturated water conductivity in NTS was significantly increased by 52.8%-107.1%”
e1“no-till with straw cover (NTS)”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e3“spring wheat and pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservational tillage reduced soil evaporation during the growing season.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Conservational tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil evaporatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- during growing seasone0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservational tillage siginificantly reduced soil evaporation during growing season”
e1“spring wheat and pea”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP reduced evapotranspiration relative to T within the reported 14.4%-50.8% range.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- no-till with plastic mulche1
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 14.4%-50.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T, the evapotranspiration of NTP, TP and NTS was significantly reduced by 14.4%-50.8%”
e1“no-till with plastic mulch (NTP)”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e3“spring wheat and pea”
Claim · model-written summary
TP reduced evapotranspiration relative to T within the reported range.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- conventional tillage with plastic mulche1
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 14.4%-50.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T, the evapotranspiration of NTP, TP and NTS was significantly reduced by 14.4%-50.8%”
e1“conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP)”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e3“spring wheat and pea”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS reduced evapotranspiration relative to T within the reported range.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- no-till with straw covere1
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 14.4%-50.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with T, the evapotranspiration of NTP, TP and NTS was significantly reduced by 14.4%-50.8%”
e1“no-till with straw cover (NTS)”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e3“spring wheat and pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservational tillage decreased soil evaporation after rain.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- Conservational tillagee1
- Outcome
- soil evaporation after raine0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The soil evaporation after rain was also decreased”
e1“Conservational tillage siginificantly reduced soil evaporation during growing season”
e2“spring wheat and pea”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservational tillage improved crop yield by 9.5%-62.8%.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Conservational tillagee0
- Outcome
- crop yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 9.5%-62.8%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservational tillage improved crop yield and water use efficiency by 9.5%-62.8% and 0.4%-50.9%, respectively”
e1“spring wheat and pea”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservational tillage improved water use efficiency by 0.4%-50.9%.
- Taxon
- spring wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Conservational tillagee0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 0.4%-50.9%e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no strawe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservational tillage improved crop yield and water use efficiency by 9.5%-62.8% and 0.4%-50.9%, respectively”
e1“spring wheat and pea”
e2“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 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
- positive
- negative
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.