Abstract
Abstract Understanding the combination of conservation tillage and straw mulching on water utilization is important for developing water management strategies in arid and semiarid areas. Few studies have investigated the effects of different tillage treatments on precipitation efficiency in winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)‐summer maize ( Zea mays L.) cropping systems. A 3‐year field experiment with five treatments, that is, conventional tillage (CT), no‐tillage, no‐tillage with straw mulching (NT + S), subsoiling tillage, and subsoiling tillage with straw mulching (ST + S), was conducted. The objective was to investigate how conservation tillage with straw mulching affected soil water storage (SWC), precipitation storage efficiency (PSE), water consumption, grain yield, water use efficiency (WUE), and precipitation use efficiency (PUE) in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system. The results indicated that the ST + S treatment increased SWC by 10.1% and 8.3% in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016, respectively. The average PSE over the 3 years under the ST + S treatment was significantly higher, by 9.1% and 6.6%, than that under the CT treatment during the respective wheat and maize seasons. Compared with CT, the average annual yield under the NT + S treatment and ST + S treatment increased by 8.5% and 14.4%, respectively. In the winter wheat‐summer maize system, the NT + S and ST + S treatments significantly increased the annual WUE and PUE. The annual average PUE under the ST + S treatment was significantly higher, by 14.1%, than that under CT over the 3 years. Therefore, the ST + S treatment was more beneficial than the other treatments for increasing yield, WUE and PUE in sandy loam soil on the North China Plain.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
The ST + S treatment increased soil water content by 10.1% and 8.3% in the two seasons.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- ST + S treatmente1
- Outcome
- SWCe1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 10.1% and 8.3%e1
- Setting
- North China Plaint0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The results indicated that the ST + S treatment increased SWC by 10.1% and 8.3% in 2014–2015 and 2015–2016, respectively”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The ST + S treatment raised precipitation storage efficiency significantly above CT, by 9.1% and 6.6% in wheat and maize seasons.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- ST + S treatmente2
- Outcome
- PSEe2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 9.1% and 6.6%e2
- Comparator
- CT treatmente2
- Setting
- North China Plaint0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The average PSE over the 3 years under the ST + S treatment was significantly higher, by 9.1% and 6.6%, than that under the CT treatment during the respective wheat and maize seasons”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The NT + S treatment increased average annual yield by 8.5% compared with CT.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NT + S treatmente3
- Outcome
- average annual yielde3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 8.5%e3
- Comparator
- CTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Compared with CT, the average annual yield under the NT + S treatment and ST + S treatment increased by 8.5% and 14.4%, respectively”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The ST + S treatment increased average annual yield by 14.4% compared with CT.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- ST + S treatmente3
- Outcome
- average annual yielde3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 14.4%e3
- Comparator
- CTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Compared with CT, the average annual yield under the NT + S treatment and ST + S treatment increased by 8.5% and 14.4%, respectively”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The NT + S treatment significantly increased annual WUE and PUE.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NT + Se4
- Outcome
- annual WUE and PUEe4
- Direction
- increasede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“In the winter wheat‐summer maize system, the NT + S and ST + S treatments significantly increased the annual WUE and PUE”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The ST + S treatment significantly increased annual WUE and PUE.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- ST + Se4
- Outcome
- annual WUE and PUEe4
- Direction
- increasede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“In the winter wheat‐summer maize system, the NT + S and ST + S treatments significantly increased the annual WUE and PUE”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The ST + S treatment raised annual average PUE significantly above CT, by 14.1%.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- ST + S treatmente5
- Outcome
- annual average PUEe5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 14.1%e5
- Comparator
- CTe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The annual average PUE under the ST + S treatment was significantly higher, by 14.1%, than that under CT over the 3 years”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The ST + S treatment was more beneficial than the other treatments for yield, WUE and PUE in sandy loam soil.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- ST + S treatmente6
- Outcome
- yield, WUE and PUEe6
- Direction
- more beneficiale6
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse6
- Setting
- North China Plaine6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Therefore, the ST + S treatment was more beneficial than the other treatments for increasing yield, WUE and PUE in sandy loam soil on the North China Plain”
t0“in a winter wheat‐summer maize cropping system on the North China Plain”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
144 papers more in this group
See all 148 papers →sulfur atom · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
sulfur atom · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- 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.