Abstract
Water shortage is a serious issue threatening the sustainable development of agriculture in the North China Plain, with the winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as its largest water-consuming crop. The effects of tillage practices on the water consumption and water use efficiency (WUE) of wheat under high-yield conditions using supplemental irrigation based on testing soil moisture dynamic change were examined in this study. This experiment was conducted from 2007 to 2010, with five tillage practice treatments, namely, strip rotary tillage (SR), strip rotary tillage after subsoiling (SRS), rotary tillage (R), rotary tillage after subsoiling (RS), and plowing tillage (P). The results showed that in the SRS and RS treatments the total water and soil water consumptions were 11.81, 25.18% and 12.16, 14.75% higher than those in SR and R treatments, respectively. The lowest ratio of irrigation consumption to total water consumption in the SRS treatment was 18.53 and 21.88% for the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 growing seasons, respectively. However, the highest percentage of water consumption was found in the SRS treatment from anthesis to maturity. No significant difference was found between the WUE of the flag leaf at the later filling stage in the SRS and RS treatments, but the flag leaf WUE at these stages were higher than those of other treatments. The SRS and RS treatments exhibited the highest grain yield (9573.76 and 9507.49 kg ha−1 for 3-yr average) with no significant difference between the two treatments, followed by P, R and SR treatments. But the SRS treatment had the highest WUE. Thus, the 1-yr subsoiling tillage, plus 2 yr of strip rotary planting operation may be an efficient measure to increase wheat yield and WUE.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
SRS increased total water consumption relative to SR by 11.81%.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- total watere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11.81e0
- Comparator
- SRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“in the SRS and RS treatments the total water and soil water consumptions were 11.81, 25.18% and 12.16, 14.75% higher than those in SR and R treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SRS increased soil water consumption relative to SR by 25.18%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- soil water consumptionse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 25.18%e0
- Comparator
- SRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“in the SRS and RS treatments the total water and soil water consumptions were 11.81, 25.18% and 12.16, 14.75% higher than those in SR and R treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
RS increased total water consumption relative to R by 12.16%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- RSe0
- Outcome
- total watere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 12.16e0
- Comparator
- Re0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“in the SRS and RS treatments the total water and soil water consumptions were 11.81, 25.18% and 12.16, 14.75% higher than those in SR and R treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
RS increased soil water consumption relative to R by 14.75%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- RSe0
- Outcome
- soil water consumptionse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 14.75%e0
- Comparator
- Re0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“in the SRS and RS treatments the total water and soil water consumptions were 11.81, 25.18% and 12.16, 14.75% higher than those in SR and R treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SRS had the lowest irrigation share of total water use in 2008–2009, at 18.53%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- ratio of irrigation consumption to total water consumptione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 18.53e0
- Qualifier
- 2008–2009e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“The lowest ratio of irrigation consumption to total water consumption in the SRS treatment was 18.53 and 21.88% for the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 growing seasons, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SRS had the lowest irrigation share of total water use in 2009–2010, at 21.88%.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- ratio of irrigation consumption to total water consumptione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 21.88%e0
- Qualifier
- 2009–2010e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“The lowest ratio of irrigation consumption to total water consumption in the SRS treatment was 18.53 and 21.88% for the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 growing seasons, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
SRS had the highest water consumption percentage from anthesis to maturity.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- anthesis to maturitye0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- percentage of water consumptione0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“the highest percentage of water consumption was found in the SRS treatment from anthesis to maturity”
Claim · model-written summary
Flag leaf WUE at late filling did not significantly differ between SRS and RS.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- flag leaf at the later filling stagee0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- WUE of the flag leafe0
- Comparator
- RSe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“No significant difference was found between the WUE of the flag leaf at the later filling stage in the SRS and RS treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Flag leaf WUE under SRS and RS exceeded the other treatments at late filling.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- flag leaf WUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“the flag leaf WUE at these stages were higher than those of other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
SRS produced a three-year average grain yield of 9573.76 kg ha−1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“The SRS and RS treatments exhibited the highest grain yield (9573.76 and 9507.49 kg ha−1 for 3-yr average) with no significant difference between the two treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
RS produced a three-year average grain yield of 9507.49 kg ha−1.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- RSe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 9507.49 kg ha−1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“The SRS and RS treatments exhibited the highest grain yield (9573.76 and 9507.49 kg ha−1 for 3-yr average) with no significant difference between the two treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield did not significantly differ between SRS and RS.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Comparator
- RSe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“The SRS and RS treatments exhibited the highest grain yield (9573.76 and 9507.49 kg ha−1 for 3-yr average) with no significant difference between the two treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
P, R and SR followed SRS and RS in descending grain-yield ranking.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- followed by P, R and SR treatmentse0
- Direction
- followed by P, R and SR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“followed by P, R and SR treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
SRS had the highest WUE.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- SRSe0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“the SRS treatment had the highest WUE”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend one year of subsoiling followed by two years of strip rotary planting to increase wheat yield and WUE.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- the 1-yr subsoiling tillage, plus 2 yr of strip rotary planting operatione0
- Direction
- increasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Field”
e0“the 1-yr subsoiling tillage, plus 2 yr of strip rotary planting operation may be an efficient measure to increase wheat yield and WUE”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 97 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 118 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.