Paper · 2012 · DergiPark (Istanbul University)

Effects of Organic Manures and Non-chemical Weed Management on Wheat. I. Plant Growth and Grain Yield

Öztürk, Ali; Bulut, Sancar; Yıldız, Nesrin; et al.

13
claims
22
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Organic wheat yield is limited by climatic and agronomic factors including nutrient deficiency, weed competition and no suitable cultivars. The effects of organic manures and non-chemical weed management on grain yield of wheat investigated during the 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons, in Erzurum (Turkey) rain-fed conditions. The experiment contained three experimental factors in a factorial design: (1) cultivar (Doğu 88, Kırik), (2) weed control (unweeded, hand weeding, high seeding rate) and (3) manure (unfertilized, mineral NP, Bio, Bio SR, Leonardit, Organic Manure, cattle manure). The modern cultivar Doğu 88 had significantly higher leaf area index, grain filling period, spikes per m2, kernels per spike, grain yield and harvest index than the local cultivar Kırik. The hand weeding and high seeding rate increased grain yield by 7.0-11.3 and 7.2-8.9% compared to the unweeded treatment. Application of mineral NP resulted in the highest yield components and grain yield. Among the organic manures, cattle manure application resulted in higher grain yields followed by Organic Manure. Cattle manure and Organic Manure increased grain yield of wheat by 21.5-33.7% and 20.4-31.5%, respectively, compared to unfertilized treatment. Improved performance in response to treatments was generally associated with spikes per m2. Doğu 88 should be preferred to local cultivar Kırik. High seeding rate appear to be a useful method to provide the wheat a competitive advantage against weeds. Cattle manure can be used for improvement of grain yield of wheat and for adequate soil fertility under rain-fed conditions.

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 13

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Doğu 88 had higher leaf area index and grain filling period than Kırik.

Material
Doğu 88e0
Outcome
leaf area index, grain filling periode0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Kırike0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“The modern cultivar Doğu 88 had significantly higher leaf area index, grain filling period, spikes per m2, kernels per spike, grain yield and harvest index than the local cultivar Kırik”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–781 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Doğu 88 had higher spikes per square metre, kernels per spike and grain yield than Kırik.

Material
Doğu 88e0
Outcome
spikes per m2, kernels per spike, grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Kırike0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“The modern cultivar Doğu 88 had significantly higher leaf area index, grain filling period, spikes per m2, kernels per spike, grain yield and harvest index than the local cultivar Kırik”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–781 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Doğu 88 had higher harvest index than Kırik.

Material
Doğu 88e0
Outcome
harvest indexe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Kırike0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“The modern cultivar Doğu 88 had significantly higher leaf area index, grain filling period, spikes per m2, kernels per spike, grain yield and harvest index than the local cultivar Kırik”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–781 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding increased grain yield by 7.0-11.3% versus no weeding.

Treatment
hand weedinge0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
7.0-11.3e0
Comparator
unweeded treatmente0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“The hand weeding and high seeding rate increased grain yield by 7.0-11.3 and 7.2-8.9% compared to the unweeded treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 783–903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High seeding rate increased grain yield by 7.2-8.9% versus no weeding.

Treatment
high seeding ratee0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
7.2-8.9%e0
Comparator
unweeded treatmente0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“The hand weeding and high seeding rate increased grain yield by 7.0-11.3 and 7.2-8.9% compared to the unweeded treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 783–903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mineral NP produced the highest yield components and grain yield.

Treatment
mineral NPe0
Outcome
yield components and grain yielde0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“Application of mineral NP resulted in the highest yield components and grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 905–987 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle manure gave higher grain yield than the other organic manures.

Treatment
cattle manuree0
Outcome
grain yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Organic Manuree0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“Among the organic manures, cattle manure application resulted in higher grain yields followed by Organic Manure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1100 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle manure raised grain yield by 21.5-33.7% against unfertilized wheat.

Treatment
Cattle manuree0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
21.5-33.7%e0
Comparator
unfertilized treatmente0

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

“Cattle manure and Organic Manure increased grain yield of wheat by 21.5-33.7% and 20.4-31.5%, respectively, compared to unfertilized treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1102–1244 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic Manure raised grain yield by 20.4-31.5% against unfertilized wheat.

Treatment
Organic Manuree0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
20.4-31.5%e0
Comparator
unfertilized treatmente0

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

“Cattle manure and Organic Manure increased grain yield of wheat by 21.5-33.7% and 20.4-31.5%, respectively, compared to unfertilized treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1102–1244 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment performance was generally associated with spikes per square metre.

Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
spikes per m2e0

Not reportedDirection

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“Improved performance in response to treatments was generally associated with spikes per m2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1336 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend Doğu 88 over Kırik.

Material
Doğu 88e0
Outcome
should be preferrede0
Comparator
Kırike0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“Doğu 88 should be preferred to local cultivar Kırik”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1338–1389 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend a high seeding rate to help wheat compete with weeds.

Treatment
High seeding ratee0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
competitive advantage against weedse0

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

“High seeding rate appear to be a useful method to provide the wheat a competitive advantage against weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1391–1496 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend cattle manure for wheat grain yield and soil fertility under rain-fed conditions.

Treatment
Cattle manuree0
Outcome
improvement of grain yielde0
Qualifier
rain-fed conditionse0

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

“Cattle manure can be used for improvement of grain yield of wheat and for adequate soil fertility under rain-fed conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1498–1621 · show in text ↑

nanoparticle · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

260 papers: 242 positive, 18 negative or no effect

241 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

256 papers more in this group

See all 260 papers →

density · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

498 papers: 376 positive, 122 negative or no effect

375 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

494 papers more in this group

See all 498 papers →

herbicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

563 papers: 466 positive, 97 negative or no effect

465 papers in the same direction as this paper · 87 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

559 papers more in this group

See all 563 papers →

fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 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.