Paper · 2004 · Crop Science

Eliminating Summer Fallow Reduces Winter Wheat Yields, but Not Necessarily System Profitability

Drew J. Lyon; David D. Baltensperger; Jürg M. Blumenthal; et al.

2
claims
2
verbatim quotes
7
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summer fallow is commonly used to stabilize winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production in the Central Great Plains, but summer fallow results in soil degradation, limits farm productivity and profitability, and stores soil water inefficiently. The objectives of this study were to quantify the production and economic consequences of replacing summer fallow with spring-planted crops on the subsequent winter wheat crop. A summer fallow treatment and five spring crop treatments [spring canola (Brassica napus L.), oat (Avena sativa L.) + pea (Pisum sativum L.) for forage, proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.), dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and corn (Zea mays L.)] were no-till seeded into sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) residue in a randomized complete block design with five replications during 1999, 2000, and 2001. Winter wheat was planted in the fall following the spring crops. Five N fertilizer treatments (0, 22, 45, 67, and 90 kg N ha−1) were randomly assigned to each previous spring crop treatment in a split-plot treatment arrangement. The 3-yr mean wheat grain yield after summer fallow was 29% greater than following oat + pea for forage and 86% greater than following corn. The 3-yr mean annualized net return for the spring crop and subsequent winter wheat crop was $4.20, −$6.91, −$7.55, −$29.66, −$81.17, and −$94.88 ha−1 for oat + pea for forage, proso millet, summer fallow, dry bean, corn, and spring canola, respectively. Systems involving oat + pea for forage and proso millet are economically competitive with systems using summer fallow.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter wheat yield after summer fallow was 29% greater than after oat plus pea forage.

Treatment
oat + pea for foragee0
Outcome
wheat grain yielde0
Direction
greatere0
Value
29%e0
Comparator
summer fallowe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The 3-yr mean wheat grain yield after summer fallow was 29% greater than following oat + pea for forage and 86% greater than following corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1198 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter wheat yield after summer fallow was 86% greater than after corn.

Treatment
corne0
Outcome
wheat grain yielde0
Direction
greatere0
Value
86%e0
Comparator
summer fallowe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The 3-yr mean wheat grain yield after summer fallow was 29% greater than following oat + pea for forage and 86% greater than following corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1198 · show in text ↑

Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

19 papers: 13 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 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.