Abstract
The energy consumption of intensive tillage practices is higher, decreasing soil and environment sustainability. Conservation agriculture practices i.e. reduced or no-tillage could be suitable options to conserve energy and environment and increase profitability. However, previous studies evaluated the energy consumption, productivity and profitability in two or three tillage systems, a comprehensive assessment of multiple tillage systems is needed. Therefore, six tillage i) conventional (CT), ii) conventional with bed (CTB), iii) reduced (RT), iv) reduced with bed (RTB), v) zero (ZT), and vi) zero with bed (ZTB) were practiced to evaluate the energy consumption, productivity of wheat-maize and their economic returns. The results showed that CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively. Considering mean productivity, CT and CTB increased by almost wheat (953.43 kg ha−1) and maize (466.66 kg ha−1) yields. However, ZT, and RT had higher EP (energy productivity, 32%) and EUE (energy use efficiency, 30%) in wheat, 14% EP and 10% EUE as compared to CTB in maize. The lower EP and EUE in maize were mainly due to higher inputs/energy consumption in comparison to wheat. The input cost of CT, and CTB was higher in wheat than in other tillage practices, but the wheat yield was statistically similar in CT, CTB, RT, and RTB in both years. The RT had a higher benefit-cost ratio (BCR) in wheat (1.52) and maize (0.74) than intensive CT practice (1.44 (wheat), 0.61 (maize)). In wheat, EUE and EP were significantly higher under RT and ZT treatments, however, both were significantly reduced under bed plantation, contrarily no specific trends were observed in maize. In conclusion, RT could be used for wheat cultivation that consumed lower energy inputs and produced higher EUE, EP, and statistically equal grain yield as compared to CT. However, this practice might not be useful for maize cultivation and needs further evaluation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage reduced wheat energy consumption by 21% versus conventional bed tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- energy consumptione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 21%e0
- Comparator
- CTBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced bed tillage reduced wheat energy consumption by 81% versus conventional bed tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- RTBe0
- Outcome
- energy consumptione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 81%e0
- Comparator
- CTBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage reduced wheat energy consumption by 36% versus conventional bed tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- energy consumptione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Comparator
- CTBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero bed tillage reduced wheat energy consumption by 169% versus conventional bed tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- ZTBe0
- Outcome
- energy consumptione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 169%e0
- Comparator
- CTBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage reduced wheat energy consumption by 81% versus conventional bed tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- energy consumptione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 81%e0
- Comparator
- CTBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage reduced maize energy consumption by 13% versus conventional bed tillage.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced bed tillage reduced maize energy consumption by 93% versus conventional bed tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage reduced maize energy consumption by 56% versus conventional bed tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero bed tillage reduced maize energy consumption by 263% versus conventional bed tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage reduced maize energy consumption by 152% versus conventional bed tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT, RTB, RT, ZTB, and ZT reduced 21% and 13%, 81% and 93%, 36% and 56%, 169% and 263%, and 81% and 152% energy consumption than CTB in wheat and maize, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional and conventional bed tillage increased mean wheat yield by 953.43 kg per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- CT and CTBe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 953.43 kg ha−1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT and CTB increased by almost wheat (953.43 kg ha−1) and maize (466.66 kg ha−1) yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional and conventional bed tillage increased mean maize yield by 466.66 kg per hectare.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT and CTB increased by almost wheat (953.43 kg ha−1) and maize (466.66 kg ha−1) yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero and reduced tillage had higher wheat energy productivity and energy use efficiency than conventional bed tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- ZT, and RTe0
- Outcome
- EP (energy productivity, 32%) and EUE (energy use efficiency, 30%)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CTBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZT, and RT had higher EP (energy productivity, 32%) and EUE (energy use efficiency, 30%) in wheat, 14% EP and 10% EUE as compared to CTB in maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage had a higher benefit-cost ratio than conventional tillage for wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- benefit-cost ratio (BCR)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.52e0
- Qualifier
- 1.44e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The RT had a higher benefit-cost ratio (BCR) in wheat (1.52) and maize (0.74) than intensive CT practice (1.44 (wheat), 0.61 (maize)).”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage had a higher benefit-cost ratio than conventional tillage for maize.
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- benefit-cost ratio (BCR)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.74e0
- Qualifier
- 0.61e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The RT had a higher benefit-cost ratio (BCR) in wheat (1.52) and maize (0.74) than intensive CT practice (1.44 (wheat), 0.61 (maize)).”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yield was statistically similar under CT, CTB, RT and RTB in both years.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- CT, CTB, RT, and RTBe0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- statistically similare0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the wheat yield was statistically similar in CT, CTB, RT, and RTB in both years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting significantly reduced wheat energy productivity and energy use efficiency.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- bed plantatione0
- Outcome
- EUE and EPe1
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: Outcome abbreviations occur earlier in the sentence; cited separately.
Verbatim
e0“both were significantly reduced under bed plantation”
e1“In wheat, EUE and EP were significantly higher under RT and ZT treatments”
t0“wheat-maize”
Claim · model-written summary
No specific maize trend was observed for energy productivity and energy use efficiency.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no specific trends were observed in maize”
e1“In wheat, EUE and EP were significantly higher under RT and ZT treatments, however, both were significantly reduced under bed plantation, contrarily no specific trends were observed in maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend reduced tillage for wheat cultivation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- RT could be used for wheat cultivatione0
- Qualifier
- lower energy inputs and produced higher EUE, EP, and statistically equal grain yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RT could be used for wheat cultivation that consumed lower energy inputs and produced higher EUE, EP, and statistically equal grain yield as compared to CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest reduced tillage may not suit maize without further evaluation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this practice might not be useful for maize cultivation and needs further evaluation.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →tillage · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 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
- positive
- 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.