Abstract
Cattle ( Bos taurus ) grazing intensifies production of the dryland wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]–fallow (WSF) rotation in the U.S. Southern High Plains. Stubble‐mulch (SM) tillage controls weeds and counteracts soil compaction. No‐till (NT) increases soil water at planting and dryland crop yields, but added grazing effects are unknown. Our objectives were to quantify dryland winter wheat and sorghum yield responses to grazing and tillage practices. At the USDA‐ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, TX, we established all WSF rotation phases in triplicate ungrazed and grazed paddocks beginning 1999 on a Pullman clay loam (fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll) using SM tillage. During spring 2004, NT or SM tillage were superimposed within grazing main plots. Cattle gain, soil water after fallow, and crop yield were compared during 2005 to 2009 using a split‐plot randomized complete block design. Cattle, stocked at 1.8 Mg ha −1 , grazed sorghum stover and growing wheat an average of 29 d for a mean gain of 147 kg ha −1 Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing, but increased from 14 to 28 mm with NT. Although grazing seldom reduced yield of wheat or sorghum, NT in ungrazed plots increased crop yields sufficiently (0.96–2.6 Mg ha −1 ) in 2008 and 2009 to offset any value added by grazing. We conclude that cumulative grazing effects in NT plots reduced soil water storage and depressed yield. We recommend post‐wheat‐harvest SM tillage to disrupt soil compaction and restore grazed soil productivity.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing did not affect soil water at planting.
- Taxon
- wheat and sorghum
Sorghum
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- grazinge0
- Outcome
- Soil water at plantinge0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing”
t0“Tillage and Cattle Grazing Effects on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in a Dryland Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation”
e1“dryland winter wheat and sorghum yield responses”
e2“Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till increased soil water at planting from 14 to 28 mm.
- Taxon
- wheat and sorghumSorghumTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Soil water at plantinge2
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14 to 28 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased from 14 to 28 mm with NT”
t0“Tillage and Cattle Grazing Effects on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in a Dryland Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation”
e1“dryland winter wheat and sorghum yield responses”
e2“Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
Grazing seldom reduced wheat or sorghum yield.
- Taxon
- wheat or sorghumSorghumTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- grazinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- seldom reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grazing seldom reduced yield of wheat or sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till in ungrazed plots increased crop yields by 0.96–2.6 Mg ha−1.
- Taxon
- wheat and sorghumSorghumTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.96–2.6 Mg ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NT in ungrazed plots increased crop yields sufficiently (0.96–2.6 Mg ha −1 ) in 2008 and 2009”
t0“Tillage and Cattle Grazing Effects on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in a Dryland Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation”
e1“dryland winter wheat and sorghum yield responses”
e2“Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded cumulative grazing reduced soil water storage in no-till plots.
- Taxon
- wheat and sorghumSorghumTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- cumulative grazinge0
- Outcome
- soil water storagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cumulative grazing effects in NT plots reduced soil water storage”
t0“Tillage and Cattle Grazing Effects on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in a Dryland Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation”
e1“dryland winter wheat and sorghum yield responses”
e2“Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded cumulative grazing depressed yield in no-till plots.
- Taxon
- wheat and sorghumSorghumTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- cumulative grazinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- depressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cumulative grazing effects in NT plots reduced soil water storage and depressed yield.”
t0“Tillage and Cattle Grazing Effects on Soil Properties and Grain Yields in a Dryland Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation”
e1“dryland winter wheat and sorghum yield responses”
e2“Soil water at planting was unaffected by grazing”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend post-wheat-harvest stubble-mulch tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- post‐wheat‐harvest SM tillage to disrupt soil compaction and restore grazed soil productivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We recommend post‐wheat‐harvest SM tillage to disrupt soil compaction and restore grazed soil productivity.”
The same questions in other papers
grazing · yield · SorghumResults differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
grazing · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →tillage · yield · SorghumResults differ
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 papers →tillage · soil: physics · SorghumPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 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
- no effect
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →grazing · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
grazing · soil: physics · SorghumResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
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.