Abstract
In the central Great Plains, there has been an increase in summer crops, such as grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] or corn (Zea mays L.), grown in a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–summer crop–fallow rotation. This field study quantified the effects of increasing cropping intensity beyond a 3-yr rotation on soil water dynamics and wheat and grain sorghum production and profitability and determined the grain yields necessary to ensure greater profitability over 3-yr rotations. Cropping systems evaluated were wheat–wheat–sorghum–fallow (WWSF), wheat–sorghum–sorghum–fallow (WSSF), and continuous wheat (WW). Available soil water (ASW) at wheat planting was 82 mm greater following sorghum than following wheat; however, fallow efficiency decreased from 50% following wheat to 20% following sorghum. At sorghum planting, ASW was 22 to 32 mm greater following wheat than sorghum. Before sorghum, soil water accumulation during fallow was much greater following wheat than sorghum (168 vs. 60 mm). Fallow efficiency was also greater (34 vs. 23%). Wheat yields were 43% (1.2 Mg ha−1) greater following sorghum than wheat. Grain sorghum yields were 36% (1.5 Mg ha−1) greater following wheat than sorghum. Production costs were similar for all rotations. The WSSF rotation had the highest net returns, about $95 ha−1 compared with $92 ha−1 for a simulated WSF rotation, $76 ha−1 for WWSF, and $49 ha−1 for WW. In this study, grain yields required to make 4-yr rotations more profitable than a 3-yr WSF rotation were recrop sorghum yields of 3.5 to 4.0 Mg ha−1 and recrop wheat yields of 2.5 to 3.0 Mg ha−1
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil water at wheat planting was 82 mm greater following sorghum than following wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- sorghume1
- Outcome
- Available soil water (ASW) at wheat plantinge1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 82 mme1
- Comparator
- wheate1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Available soil water (ASW) at wheat planting was 82 mm greater following sorghum than following wheat”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
At sorghum planting, available soil water was 22 to 32 mm greater following wheat than following sorghum.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- wheate1
- Outcome
- ASWe1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 22 to 32 mme1
- Qualifier
- At sorghum plantinge1
- Comparator
- sorghume1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“At sorghum planting, ASW was 22 to 32 mm greater following wheat than sorghum”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow efficiency decreased from 50% following wheat to 20% following sorghum.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- sorghume1
- Outcome
- fallow efficiencye1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- from 50% following wheat to 20%e1
- Comparator
- wheate1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“fallow efficiency decreased from 50% following wheat to 20% following sorghum”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water accumulation during fallow before sorghum was much greater following wheat than sorghum (168 vs. 60 mm).
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- wheate1
- Outcome
- soil water accumulation during fallowe1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 168 vs. 60 mme1
- Comparator
- sorghume1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Before sorghum, soil water accumulation during fallow was much greater following wheat than sorghum (168 vs. 60 mm)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow efficiency was greater following wheat than following sorghum (34 vs. 23%).
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- wheate1
- Outcome
- Fallow efficiencye3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Value
- 34 vs. 23%e3
- Comparator
- sorghume1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Before sorghum, soil water accumulation during fallow was much greater following wheat than sorghum (168 vs. 60 mm)”
e3“Fallow efficiency was also greater (34 vs. 23%)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yields were 43% (1.2 Mg ha−1) greater following sorghum than following wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- sorghume1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 43% (1.2 Mg ha−1)e1
- Comparator
- wheate1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Wheat yields were 43% (1.2 Mg ha−1) greater following sorghum than wheat”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain sorghum yields were 36% (1.5 Mg ha−1) greater following wheat than following sorghum.
- Taxon
- Grain sorghum
Sorghum bicolore1 - Treatment
- wheate1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 36% (1.5 Mg ha−1)e1
- Comparator
- sorghume1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Grain sorghum yields were 36% (1.5 Mg ha−1) greater following wheat than sorghum”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Production costs were similar for all rotations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Outcome
- Production costse1
- Qualifier
- similar for all rotationse1
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Production costs were similar for all rotations”
e4“continuous wheat (WW)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
The WSSF rotation had the highest net returns, about $95 ha−1.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- WSSF rotatione3
- Outcome
- net returnse3
- Direction
- higheste3
- Value
- $95 ha−1e3
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The WSSF rotation had the highest net returns, about $95 ha−1 compared with $92 ha−1 for a simulated WSF rotation, $76 ha−1 for WWSF, and $49 ha−1 for WW”
e4“continuous wheat (WW)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
The simulated WSF rotation had net returns of about $92 ha−1, compared with the WSSF rotation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- WSF rotatione3
- Outcome
- net returnse3
- Value
- $92 ha−1e3
- Comparator
- WSSF rotatione3
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The WSSF rotation had the highest net returns, about $95 ha−1 compared with $92 ha−1 for a simulated WSF rotation, $76 ha−1 for WWSF, and $49 ha−1 for WW”
e4“continuous wheat (WW)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
The WWSF rotation had net returns of about $76 ha−1.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- WWSFe3
- Outcome
- net returnse3
- Value
- $76 ha−1e3
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The WSSF rotation had the highest net returns, about $95 ha−1 compared with $92 ha−1 for a simulated WSF rotation, $76 ha−1 for WWSF, and $49 ha−1 for WW”
e4“continuous wheat (WW)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous wheat had net returns of about $49 ha−1, the lowest of the rotations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- WWe3
- Outcome
- net returnse3
- Value
- $49 ha−1e3
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The WSSF rotation had the highest net returns, about $95 ha−1 compared with $92 ha−1 for a simulated WSF rotation, $76 ha−1 for WWSF, and $49 ha−1 for WW”
e4“continuous wheat (WW)”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain sorghum yields of 3.5 to 4.0 Mg ha−1 were required to make four-year rotations more profitable than the three-year WSF rotation.
- Outcome
- recrop sorghum yieldse5
- Value
- 3.5 to 4.0 Mg ha−1e5
- Qualifier
- required to make 4-yr rotations more profitable than a 3-yr WSF rotatione5
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“grain yields required to make 4-yr rotations more profitable than a 3-yr WSF rotation were recrop sorghum yields of 3.5 to 4.0 Mg ha−1 and recrop wheat yields of 2.5 to 3.0 Mg ha−1”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
Claim · model-written summary
Recrop wheat yields of 2.5 to 3.0 Mg ha−1 were required to make four-year rotations more profitable than the three-year WSF rotation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume5
- Outcome
- recrop wheat yieldse5
- Value
- 2.5 to 3.0 Mg ha−1e5
- Qualifier
- required to make 4-yr rotations more profitable than a 3-yr WSF rotatione5
- Setting
- central Great Plainse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“grain yields required to make 4-yr rotations more profitable than a 3-yr WSF rotation were recrop sorghum yields of 3.5 to 4.0 Mg ha−1 and recrop wheat yields of 2.5 to 3.0 Mg ha−1”
e2“In the central Great Plains”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · yield · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →Sorghum · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
41 papers more in this group
See all 45 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.