Abstract
Water availability is a major constraint for crop production in semiarid environments. The impact of tillage practices on water potential gradient, water transfer resistance, yield, and water use efficiency (WUEg) of spring wheat was determined on the western Loess Plateau. Six tillage practices implemented in 2001 and their effects were determined in 2016 and 2017 including conventional tillage with no straw (T), no-till with straw cover (NTS), no-till with no straw (NT), conventional tillage with straw incorporated (TS), conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP), and no-till with plastic mulch (NTP). No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential at the seedling stage by 42, 47, and 57%, respectively; root water potential at the seedling stage by 34, 35, and 51%, respectively; leaf water potential at the seedling stage by 37, 48, and 42%, respectively; tillering stage by 21, 24, and 30%, respectively; jointing stage by 28, 32, and 36%, respectively; and flowering stage by 10, 26, and 16%, respectively, compared to T. These treatments also significantly reduced the soil–leaf water potential gradient at the 0–10 cm soil depth at the seedling stage by 35, 48, and 35%, respectively, and at the 30–50 cm soil depth at flowering by 62, 46, and 65%, respectively, compared to T. Thus, NTS, TP, and NTP reduced soil–leaf water transfer resistance and enhanced transpiration. Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%; and WUEg by 24, 26, and 24%, respectively. These results demonstrate that no-till with straw mulch and plastic mulching with either no-till or conventional tillage decrease the soil–leaf water potential gradient and soil–leaf water transfer resistance and enhance sustainable intensification of wheat production in semi-arid areas.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
NTS raised seedling soil water potential by 42% relative to T.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- no-till with straw cover (NTS)e2
- Outcome
- soil water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 42e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no straw (T)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential at the seedling stage by 42, 47, and 57%, respectively”
e2“no-till with straw cover (NTS)”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
TP raised seedling soil water potential by 47% relative to T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP)e2
- Outcome
- soil water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 47e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no straw (T)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential at the seedling stage by 42, 47, and 57%, respectively”
e2“conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP)”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP raised seedling soil water potential by 57% relative to T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- no-till with plastic mulch (NTP)e2
- Outcome
- soil water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 57e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no straw (T)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential at the seedling stage by 42, 47, and 57%, respectively”
e2“no-till with plastic mulch (NTP)”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS raised seedling root water potential by 34%.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- no-till with straw cover (NTS)e2
- Outcome
- root water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede4
- Value
- 34e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no straw (T)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“root water potential at the seedling stage by 34, 35, and 51%, respectively”
e2“no-till with straw cover (NTS)”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e4“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
TP raised seedling root water potential by 35%.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP)e2
- Outcome
- root water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede4
- Value
- 35e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no straw (T)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“root water potential at the seedling stage by 34, 35, and 51%, respectively”
e2“conventional tillage with plastic mulch (TP)”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e4“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP raised seedling root water potential by 51%.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- no-till with plastic mulch (NTP)e2
- Outcome
- root water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede4
- Value
- 51e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage with no straw (T)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“root water potential at the seedling stage by 34, 35, and 51%, respectively”
e2“no-till with plastic mulch (NTP)”
e3“conventional tillage with no straw (T)”
e4“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS, TP and NTP improved leaf water potential at seedling, tillering, jointing and flowering stages relative to T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- seedling stagee1
- Treatment
- No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTPe2
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale1
- Direction
- improvede2
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“leaf water potential at the seedling stage by 37, 48, and 42%, respectively; tillering stage by 21, 24, and 30%, respectively; jointing stage by 28, 32, and 36%, respectively; and flowering stage by 10, 26, and 16%, respectively, compared to T.”
e2“No-till with straw cover, TP, and NTP significantly improved soil water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS, TP and NTP reduced the soil–leaf water potential gradient at seedling and flowering stages.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTS, TP, and NTPe2
- Outcome
- soil–leaf water potential gradiente1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“These treatments also significantly reduced the soil–leaf water potential gradient at the 0–10 cm soil depth at the seedling stage by 35, 48, and 35%, respectively, and at the 30–50 cm soil depth at flowering by 62, 46, and 65%, respectively, compared to T.”
e2“Thus, NTS, TP, and NTP reduced soil–leaf water transfer resistance”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS, TP and NTP reduced soil–leaf water transfer resistance.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTS, TP, and NTPe1
- Outcome
- soil–leaf water transfer resistancee1
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“NTS, TP, and NTP reduced soil–leaf water transfer resistance and enhanced transpiration.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS, TP and NTP enhanced transpiration.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTS, TP, and NTPe1
- Outcome
- transpiratione1
- Direction
- enhancede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“NTS, TP, and NTP reduced soil–leaf water transfer resistance and enhanced transpiration.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS increased biomass yield by 18% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTSe1
- Outcome
- biomass yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 18e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%”
Claim · model-written summary
TP increased biomass yield by 36% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- TPe1
- Outcome
- biomass yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 36e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased biomass yield by 40% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTPe1
- Outcome
- biomass yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 40e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS increased grain yield by 28% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTSe1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 28e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%”
Claim · model-written summary
TP increased grain yield by 22% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- TPe1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 22e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased grain yield by 24% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTPe1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 24e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS increased WUEg by 24% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTSe1
- Outcome
- WUEge1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 24e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%; and WUEg by 24, 26, and 24%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
TP increased WUEg by 26% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- TPe1
- Outcome
- WUEge1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 26e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%; and WUEg by 24, 26, and 24%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTP increased WUEg by 24% compared with T.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTPe1
- Outcome
- WUEge1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 24e1
- Comparator
- Te1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spring wheat”
e1“Compared to T, the NTS, TP, and NTP practices increased biomass yield by 18, 36, and 40%; grain yield by 28, 22, and 24%; and WUEg by 24, 26, and 24%, respectively.”
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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →tillage · physiology: gas exchange · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →tillage · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →mulching · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
145 papers more in this group
See all 149 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
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →mulching · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
mulching · physiology: gas exchange · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.