Paper · 2023 · Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports

Tillage Intensity in a Long-Term Wheat-Sorghum-Fallow Rotation

Lucas A. Haag; Amanda Burnett; Dewayne Bond; et al.

10
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This study was initiated in 1991 at the Kansas State University Southwest Research-Extension Center near Tribune, KS. The purpose of the study was to identify the effects of tillage intensity on precipitation capture, soil water storage, and grain yield in a wheat-sorghum-fallow rotation. Grain yields of wheat and grain sorghum increased with decreased tillage intensity in a wheat-sorghumfallow (WSF) rotation. In 2022, available soil water at sorghum planting was greater for no-tillage (NT) than reduced tillage (RT), which was greater than conventional tillage (CT). For wheat there was a similar pattern as sorghum, with available soil water at wheat planting being in the order of NT>RT>CT. Averaged across the most recent 22 years of the study, available soil water at wheat planting was 0.60 inch greater for NT than RT and approximately 1.7 inches greater than CT. Average available soil water at sorghum planting was greater in the order RT=NT>CT averaging 7.9 inches for RT and NT and 5.9 inches for CT. Averaged across the past 22 years, NT wheat yields were 6 bu/a greater than RT and 10 bu/a greater than CT. Averaged across the past 22 years, sorghum yields with long-term NT have been 57% greater than with RT (82 vs. 52 bu/a).

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat grain yield increased with decreased tillage intensity.

Treatment
decreased tillage intensitye1
Outcome
Grain yieldse1
Direction
increasede1
Setting
Tribune, KSe2

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

e1

“Grain yields of wheat and grain sorghum increased with decreased tillage intensity in a wheat-sorghumfallow (WSF) rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 290–412 · show in text ↑
e2

“This study was initiated in 1991 at the Kansas State University Southwest Research-Extension Center near Tribune, KS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain sorghum yield increased with decreased tillage intensity.

Taxon
grain sorghumSorghum bicolore1
Treatment
decreased tillage intensitye1
Outcome
Grain yieldse1
Direction
increasede1
Setting
Tribune, KSe2

Not reportedComparator

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Grain yields of wheat and grain sorghum increased with decreased tillage intensity in a wheat-sorghumfallow (WSF) rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 290–412 · show in text ↑
e2

“This study was initiated in 1991 at the Kansas State University Southwest Research-Extension Center near Tribune, KS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2022, available soil water at sorghum planting was greatest under no-tillage, then reduced tillage, then conventional tillage.

Taxon
sorghumSorghume1
Treatment
no-tillage (NT)e1
Outcome
available soil water at sorghum plantinge1
Direction
greatere1
Qualifier
which was greater than conventional tillage (CT)e1
Comparator
reduced tillage (RT)e1

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

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“In 2022, available soil water at sorghum planting was greater for no-tillage (NT) than reduced tillage (RT), which was greater than conventional tillage (CT)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–571 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2022, available soil water at wheat planting followed the order NT>RT>CT.

Treatment
NTe1
Outcome
available soil water at wheat plantinge1
Direction
higherinferrede1
Qualifier
in the order of NT>RT>CTe1
Comparator
RTe1

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

e1

“For wheat there was a similar pattern as sorghum, with available soil water at wheat planting being in the order of NT>RT>CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 573–697 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged over 22 years, available soil water at wheat planting was 0.60 inch greater under no-tillage than reduced tillage.

Treatment
NTe1
Outcome
available soil water at wheat plantinge1
Direction
greatere1
Value
0.60 inche1
Qualifier
Averaged across the most recent 22 years of the studye1
Comparator
RTe1

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

e1

“Averaged across the most recent 22 years of the study, available soil water at wheat planting was 0.60 inch greater for NT than RT and approximately 1.7 inches greater than CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–874 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged over 22 years, available soil water at wheat planting was about 1.7 inches greater under no-tillage than conventional tillage.

Treatment
NTe1
Outcome
available soil water at wheat plantinge1
Direction
greatere1
Value
1.7 inchese1
Qualifier
Averaged across the most recent 22 years of the studye1
Comparator
CTe1

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

e1

“Averaged across the most recent 22 years of the study, available soil water at wheat planting was 0.60 inch greater for NT than RT and approximately 1.7 inches greater than CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–874 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged over the study, available soil water at sorghum planting was 7.9 inches under reduced and no-tillage and 5.9 inches under conventional tillage.

Taxon
sorghumSorghume1
Treatment
RT and NTe1
Outcome
Average available soil water at sorghum plantinge1
Direction
greatere1
Value
7.9 inchese1
Qualifier
5.9 inches for CTe1
Comparator
CTe1

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

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Average available soil water at sorghum planting was greater in the order RT=NT>CT averaging 7.9 inches for RT and NT and 5.9 inches for CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 876–1015 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged over the past 22 years, no-tillage wheat yield was 6 bu/a greater than reduced tillage.

Treatment
NTe1
Outcome
wheat yieldse1
Direction
greatere1
Value
6 bu/ae1
Qualifier
Averaged across the past 22 yearse1
Comparator
RTe1

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

e1

“Averaged across the past 22 years, NT wheat yields were 6 bu/a greater than RT and 10 bu/a greater than CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged over the past 22 years, no-tillage wheat yield was 10 bu/a greater than conventional tillage.

Treatment
NTe1
Outcome
wheat yieldse1
Direction
greatere1
Value
10 bu/ae1
Qualifier
Averaged across the past 22 yearse1
Comparator
CTe1

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

e1

“Averaged across the past 22 years, NT wheat yields were 6 bu/a greater than RT and 10 bu/a greater than CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Averaged over the past 22 years, sorghum yield with long-term no-tillage was 57% greater than with reduced tillage.

Taxon
sorghumSorghume1
Treatment
long-term NTe1
Outcome
sorghum yieldse1
Direction
greatere1
Value
57%e1
Qualifier
82 vs. 52 bu/ae1
Comparator
RTe1

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

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Averaged across the past 22 years, sorghum yields with long-term NT have been 57% greater than with RT (82 vs. 52 bu/a)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1125–1244 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ

123 papers: 102 positive, 21 negative or no effect

101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

119 papers more in this group

See all 123 papers →

tillage · yield · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results

48 papers: 29 positive, 19 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

44 papers more in this group

See all 48 papers →

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

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

1,410 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 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.