Abstract
Limited information exists on how tillage and nitrogen (N) fertilization affects small-scale variation in nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and crop performance. In a two-year field study under temperate conditions, we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC). A randomized complete block design with three replications was used. Within each tillage plot (12 × 35 m2), N rates (0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 kg N ha−1) were completely randomized within each of four groups of microplots (1.5 × 1.5 m2). Early-season soil mineral N (Nmin) was also monitored in both years. At rates < 150 kg N ha−1, NT was not competitive with CT in terms of Gw and NUE. Gw and aboveground plant N were not correlated with Nmin prior to application of N fertilizer. NT usually led to larger spatial heterogeneity of Nmin, Gw, and NUE. The small-scale variability of Gw, GPC, NUE, and N supply decreased with increasing N fertilization rates under both tillage systems. Significant increases in Gw and GPC were observed with increasing N rates, whereas NUE decreased slightly with increasing N rates in both NT and CT. The overall moderate spatial variation in Nmin, Gw, and NUE did not justify site-specific N fertilization in these small fields, with the exception of the stony within-plot positions, which were not responsive to rates of N > 50 kg N ha−1.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
At N rates below 150 kg N ha-1, no-tillage was not competitive with conventional tillage for grain yield and NUE.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- Gw and NUEe1
- Direction
- not competitivee1
- Qualifier
- At rates < 150 kg N ha−1e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e1“At rates < 150 kg N ha−1, NT was not competitive with CT in terms of Gw and NUE”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield and aboveground plant N were not correlated with soil mineral N (Nmin) before N fertilizer application.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Compound
- Nmine2
- Outcome
- Gw and aboveground plant Ne2
- Direction
- not correlatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e2“Gw and aboveground plant N were not correlated with Nmin prior to application of N fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield and grain protein concentration increased with increasing N rates.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- increasing N ratese3
- Outcome
- Gw and GPCe3
- Direction
- increasese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e3“Significant increases in Gw and GPC were observed with increasing N rates”
Claim · model-written summary
NUE decreased slightly with increasing N rates in both NT and CT.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- increasing N ratese4
- Outcome
- NUEe4
- Direction
- decreased slightlye4
- Qualifier
- in both NT and CTe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e4“whereas NUE decreased slightly with increasing N rates in both NT and CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Small-scale variability of Gw, GPC and NUE decreased with increasing N fertilization rates under both tillage systems.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- increasing N fertilization ratese5
- Outcome
- small-scale variability of Gw, GPC, NUEe5
- Direction
- decreasede5
- Qualifier
- under both tillage systemse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e5“The small-scale variability of Gw, GPC, NUE, and N supply decreased with increasing N fertilization rates under both tillage systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Small-scale variability of N supply decreased with increasing N fertilization rates.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- increasing N fertilization ratese5
- Outcome
- N supplye5
- Direction
- decreasede5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e5“The small-scale variability of Gw, GPC, NUE, and N supply decreased with increasing N fertilization rates under both tillage systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Site-specific N fertilization was not justified for these small fields.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- site-specific N fertilizatione7
- Qualifier
- in these small fieldse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e7“did not justify site-specific N fertilization in these small fields”
Claim · model-written summary
Stony within-plot positions were not responsive to N rates above 50 kg N ha-1.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- rates of N > 50 kg N ha−1e7
- Outcome
- responsivee7
- Direction
- not responsivee7
- Setting
- stony within-plot positionse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e7“the stony within-plot positions, which were not responsive to rates of N > 50 kg N ha−1”
Claim · model-written summary
No-tillage usually led to larger spatial heterogeneity of Nmin, grain yield and NUE.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTe6
- Outcome
- spatial heterogeneity of Nmin, Gw, and NUEe6
- Direction
- largere6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“we investigated how tillage (NT, no-tillage; CT, conventional tillage) and N fertilization affected the small-scale variation in NUE and winter wheat performance (grain yield, Gw; grain protein concentration, GPC)”
e6“NT usually led to larger spatial heterogeneity of Nmin, Gw, and NUE”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 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.