Paper · 2022 · Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science

Consequences of changing spatial configuration at sowing in the transitions between crop and pasture phases

Richard C. Hayes; Matthew T. Newell; Anthony D. Swan; et al.

12
claims
18
verbatim quotes
7
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Prospects for improving the productivity of species mixtures in transitions between phases by changing row configuration at sowing were examined in two series of field experiments in rain‐fed, semi‐arid environments in south‐eastern Australia. The first series explored how the choice of cover crop and use of alternate drill row configurations affected establishment and yields of sward components in the transition from a cropping into a pasture phase. Cover‐crop species included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), canola ( Brassica napus L.) and lupins ( Lupinus augustifolius L.), each sown in mixed or alternate drill rows with lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.) and subterranean clover ( Trifolium subterraneum L.). The second series of experiments examined the productivity implications when returning from the pasture phase back into cropping following 10 contrasting pastures sown to various combinations of lucerne, subterranean clover or phalaris ( Phalaris aquatica L.) sown in mixed, alternate (1:1) or double skip (1:2) row configurations in the absence of cover crops. All experiments were sown on a 0.25‐m row spacing. In the transition into the pasture phase, grain yields of cover crops in the mixed drill row treatment were similar to those achieved by crops grown in the absence of pasture species but were reduced by an average of 24% in the alternate drill row configuration. Canola and lupin crop biomass were lower, compared with wheat and barley, leading to increased pasture yields in year 1, highlighting an opportunity for increased use of these species as cover/companion crops in semi‐arid environments. Pasture yields beyond year 1 were reduced by ~20% in the alternate drill row treatments compared with where species were sown in mixed drill rows, with greater yield differences under more favourable growing conditions. This response largely reflected yield reductions in lucerne where it was concentrated in fewer drill rows. The alternate drill row configuration increased the abundance of subterranean clover in year 1, but this species remained a minor component of all swards beyond the establishment year. In the transition into the cropping phase, effects on grain quality could only be attributed to row configuration of the previous pasture to the extent that row configuration changed pasture composition. Grain size was smallest and protein concentration highest where previous pastures contained both lucerne and subterranean clover without phalaris. Taken together, there was little advantage in total productivity attributable to spatially separating species in drill rows at sowing.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain yields of cover crops in mixed drill rows were similar to crops grown without pasture species.

Taxon
cover cropse1
Treatment
mixed drill row treatmente1
Outcome
grain yields of cover cropse1
Direction
similare1
Comparator
crops grown in the absence of pasture speciese1

Verbatim

e1

“grain yields of cover crops in the mixed drill row treatment were similar to those achieved by crops grown in the absence of pasture species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1208–1348 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Alternate drill rows reduced cover-crop grain yields by an average of 24% relative to mixed drill rows.

Taxon
cover cropse1
Treatment
alternate drill row configuratione2
Outcome
grain yields of cover cropse1
Direction
reducede2
Value
24%e2
Comparator
mixed drill row treatmente1

Verbatim

e1

“grain yields of cover crops in the mixed drill row treatment were similar to those achieved by crops grown in the absence of pasture species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1208–1348 · show in text ↑
e2

“but were reduced by an average of 24% in the alternate drill row configuration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1349–1427 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canola and lupin crop biomass was lower than wheat and barley biomass.

Outcome
crop biomasse3
Direction
lowere3
Comparator
wheat and barleye3

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

e3

“Canola and lupin crop biomass were lower, compared with wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1429–1501 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canola and lupin as cover crops led to increased pasture yields in year 1.

Outcome
pasture yields in year 1e4
Direction
increasede4

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

e3

“Canola and lupin crop biomass were lower, compared with wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1429–1501 · show in text ↑
e4

“leading to increased pasture yields in year 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1503–1548 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Canola and lupin should be used more as cover or companion crops in semi-arid environments.

Outcome
increased use of these species as cover/companion cropse5

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

e3

“Canola and lupin crop biomass were lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1429–1469 · show in text ↑
e5

“highlighting an opportunity for increased use of these species as cover/companion crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1550–1637 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pasture yields beyond year 1 were reduced by about 20% in alternate drill row treatments compared with mixed drill rows, with greater differences in more favourable conditions.

Taxon
pasturee6
Treatment
alternate drill row treatmentse6
Outcome
Pasture yields beyond year 1e6
Direction
reducede6
Value
~20%e6
Qualifier
greater yield differences under more favourable growing conditionse7
Comparator
where species were sown in mixed drill rowse6

Verbatim

e6

“Pasture yields beyond year 1 were reduced by ~20% in the alternate drill row treatments compared with where species were sown in mixed drill rows”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1665–1810 · show in text ↑
e7

“greater yield differences under more favourable growing conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1817–1883 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield reductions in lucerne were concentrated in the fewer drill rows of the alternate configuration.

Taxon
lucerneMedicago sativae1
Outcome
yield reductions in lucernee1
Qualifier
concentrated in fewer drill rowse1

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e1

“yield reductions in lucerne where it was concentrated in fewer drill rows”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1917–1990 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The alternate drill row configuration increased subterranean clover abundance in year 1.

Taxon
subterranean cloverTrifolium subterraneume1
Treatment
alternate drill row configuratione1
Outcome
abundance of subterranean clovere1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Trifolium subterraneum
Trifolium subterraneum · TaxonKevin Thiele from Perth, Australia · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The alternate drill row configuration increased the abundance of subterranean clover in year 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1992–2086 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subterranean clover remained a minor component of all swards beyond the establishment year.

Taxon
subterranean cloverTrifolium subterraneume1
Outcome
minor component of all swardse2

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

Trifolium subterraneum
Trifolium subterraneum · TaxonKevin Thiele from Perth, Australia · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The alternate drill row configuration increased the abundance of subterranean clover in year 1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1992–2086 · show in text ↑
e2

“this species remained a minor component of all swards beyond the establishment year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2092–2175 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain size was smallest where previous pastures contained lucerne and subterranean clover without phalaris.

Taxon
pasturee1
Treatment
previous pastures contained both lucerne and subterranean clover without phalarise1
Outcome
Grain sizee1
Direction
smalleste1

Verbatim

e1

“Grain size was smallest and protein concentration highest where previous pastures contained both lucerne and subterranean clover without phalaris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2381–2526 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Protein concentration in grain was highest where previous pastures contained lucerne and subterranean clover without phalaris.

Taxon
pasturee1
Treatment
previous pastures contained both lucerne and subterranean clover without phalarise1
Outcome
protein concentratione1
Direction
higheste1

Verbatim

e1

“Grain size was smallest and protein concentration highest where previous pastures contained both lucerne and subterranean clover without phalaris”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2381–2526 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spatially separating species in drill rows at sowing gave little advantage in total productivity.

Taxon
species mixturese0
Treatment
spatially separating species in drill rows at sowinge1
Outcome
total productivitye1

Verbatim

e0

“Prospects for improving the productivity of species mixtures”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–69 · show in text ↑
e1

“there was little advantage in total productivity attributable to spatially separating species in drill rows at sowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2544–2661 · show in text ↑