Abstract
This study was conducted as part of an on-going conservation agriculture experiment at ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, which began in 2015. The experiment consists of different tillage system (NT: No tillage, RT: Reduced tillage and CT: conventional tillage), residue retention (30 and 60 cm residue retention) and nutrient doses (75 and 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF), and soil test crop response (STCR dose) in a soybean-wheat sequence. The results showed that tillage, residue retention and nutrient management did not have any influence on soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC). However, there was an improvement in soil organic carbon (SOC) due to RT with 60 cm residue retention, showing an increase of 0.84 per cent after the harvest of wheat. Active carbon (C) improved to 835.7 and 780.6 mg C kg-1 under RT with 60 cm residue retention compared to CT. Both NT (30 and 60 cm residue retention) and RT (30 cm residue retention) also showed higher values of active C compared to conventional tillage (CT) and nutrient management. Ammoniacal (NH4+-N) and nitrate (NO3--N) nitrogen also behaved in similar fashion under all the treatments. However, the grain, straw and biological yields of wheat crops were significantly higher under CT and STCR but not under soybean crop. Tillage-nutrient interaction was non-significant in improving the crop yields. Therefore, it can be inferred that the CA practice involving RT or NT along with 60 cm residue retention can be adopted to enhance C sequestration and soil health in the context of climate change.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Management did not influence soil pH or electrical conductivity.
- Taxon
- Soybean-Wheatt0
- Treatment
- tillage, residue retention and nutrient managemente0
- Outcome
- soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC)e0
- Direction
- did not have any influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“tillage, residue retention and nutrient management did not have any influence on soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC)”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage with 60 cm residue retention increased soil organic carbon by 0.84 per cent after wheat harvest.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- RT with 60 cm residue retentione0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 0.84 per cente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil organic carbon (SOC) due to RT with 60 cm residue retention, showing an increase of 0.84 per cent after the harvest of wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage with 60 cm residue retention improved active carbon relative to conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Active carbon (C) improved to 835.7 and 780.6 mg C kg-1 under RT with 60 cm residue retention compared to CT.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage with 30 and 60 cm residue retention gave higher active carbon than conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“Both NT (30 and 60 cm residue retention) and RT (30 cm residue retention) also showed higher values of active C compared to conventional tillage (CT) and nutrient management.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage with 30 cm residue retention gave higher active carbon than conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“RT (30 cm residue retention) also showed higher values of active C compared to conventional tillage (CT) and nutrient management.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammoniacal and nitrate nitrogen followed similar patterns across treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Ammoniacal (NH4+-N) and nitrate (NO3--N) nitrogen also behaved in similar fashion under all the treatments.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage and STCR raised wheat grain, straw and biological yields significantly.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- CT and STCRe0
- Outcome
- grain, straw and biological yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the grain, straw and biological yields of wheat crops were significantly higher under CT and STCR”
Claim · model-written summary
The wheat yield gain under conventional tillage and STCR was absent for soybean.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- CT and STCRe0
- Outcome
- grain, straw and biological yieldse0
- Direction
- not undere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the grain, straw and biological yields of wheat crops were significantly higher under CT and STCR but not under soybean crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and nutrient management did not interact significantly for crop yield.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Tillage-nutrient interaction was non-significant in improving the crop yields.”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend reduced or no tillage with 60 cm residue retention to improve carbon sequestration and soil health.
Verbatim
e0“CA practice involving RT or NT along with 60 cm residue retention can be adopted to enhance C sequestration and soil health”
t0“Soybean-Wheat Rotation”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 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
- negative
- 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.