Abstract
Soil productivity and crop yield were examined in response to legume-based short crop rotation under conventional (CT) and no-till (NT) tillage practices in saline meadow-alluvial soils of the arid region in Bukhara, Uzbekistan. Compared with the CT treatment, crop yield was consistently higher under NT, i.e., winter wheat 9.63%, millet 9.9%, chickpea 3.8%, and maize 10.7% at the first experiment cycle during 2019–2021. A further crop productivity increase was observed at the second experiment cycle during 2021–2023 under NT when compared to CT, i.e., winter wheat 17.7%, millet 31.2%, chickpea 19.6%, and maize 19.1%. An increase in total phyto residue by 20.9% and root residue by 25% under NT compared to CT contributed to the improvement in soil structure and played a vital role in the sustained improvement of crop yields. In turn, the increased residue retention under NT facilitated soil porosity, structural stability, and water retention, thereby improving soil quality and organic matter content. Soil salinity more significantly decreased under NT than in CT, reducing salinity buildup by 18.9% at the 0–25 cm and 32.9% at the 75–100 cm soil profiles compared to CT. The total forms N and P were significantly increased under NT when compared to CT, while the efficiency of the applied crop rotation was essential. This study showed the essential role of the NT method with legume-based intensive cropping in the maintenance of soil health and crop yield, thereby touching on recent advances in agro-biotechnology and the sustainable land management of drylands.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
No till raised winter wheat yield by 9.63% in the first cycle.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- crop yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 9.63%e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“winter wheat 9.63%”
e1“Compared with the CT treatment, crop yield was consistently higher under NT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised millet yield by 9.9% in the first cycle.
Verbatim
e0“millet 9.9%”
e1“Compared with the CT treatment, crop yield was consistently higher under NT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised chickpea yield by 3.8% in the first cycle.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- crop yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3.8%e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chickpea 3.8%”
e1“Compared with the CT treatment, crop yield was consistently higher under NT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised maize yield by 10.7% in the first cycle.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize 10.7%”
e1“Compared with the CT treatment, crop yield was consistently higher under NT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised winter wheat yield by 17.7% in the second cycle.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- crop productivitye1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 17.7%e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“winter wheat 17.7%”
e1“A further crop productivity increase was observed at the second experiment cycle during 2021–2023 under NT when compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised millet yield by 31.2% in the second cycle.
Verbatim
e0“millet 31.2%”
e1“A further crop productivity increase was observed at the second experiment cycle during 2021–2023 under NT when compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised chickpea yield by 19.6% in the second cycle.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- crop productivitye1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 19.6%e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chickpea 19.6%”
e1“A further crop productivity increase was observed at the second experiment cycle during 2021–2023 under NT when compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised maize yield by 19.1% in the second cycle.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize 19.1%”
e1“A further crop productivity increase was observed at the second experiment cycle during 2021–2023 under NT when compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised total plant residue by 20.9%.
Verbatim
e0“An increase in total phyto residue by 20.9% and root residue by 25% under NT compared to CT”
t0“Short Crop Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
No till raised root residue by 25%.
Verbatim
e0“An increase in total phyto residue by 20.9% and root residue by 25% under NT compared to CT”
t0“Short Crop Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
No till improved soil porosity, structural stability and water retention.
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- soil porosity, structural stability, and water retentione0
- Direction
- facilitatede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the increased residue retention under NT facilitated soil porosity, structural stability, and water retention”
Claim · model-written summary
No till reduced soil salinity buildup by 18.9% at 0–25 cm.
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- salinity buildupe0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 18.9%e0
- Qualifier
- 0–25 cme0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“reducing salinity buildup by 18.9% at the 0–25 cm and 32.9% at the 75–100 cm soil profiles compared to CT”
e1“Soil salinity more significantly decreased under NT than in CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till reduced soil salinity buildup by 32.9% at 75–100 cm.
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- salinity buildupe0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 32.9%e0
- Qualifier
- 75–100 cme0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“reducing salinity buildup by 18.9% at the 0–25 cm and 32.9% at the 75–100 cm soil profiles compared to CT”
e1“Soil salinity more significantly decreased under NT than in CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No till increased total nitrogen and phosphorus forms.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The total forms N and P were significantly increased under NT when compared to CT”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.