Abstract
Abstract Tillage or the lack of tillage affects infiltration and its variability across the field. To quantify infiltration characteristics of soil under no‐till and clean‐till furrow irrigated systems, a 3‐yr rotation of wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow on a Pullman sandy clay loam soil (fine, mixed, thermic Torrentic Paleustoll) was initiated. Treatments were no‐till and clean‐till with or without wheel traffic. Soil water contents, water advance times down the furrow, wetted cross‐sectional area of flow, and cumulative furrow infiltration during three irrigations for each cropping event were determined. No‐till treatments conserved significantly more soil water (3.0 cm) during the fallow periods than clean‐till. Average water advance times to the end of the field were 301 and 175 min for no‐till and clean‐till, respectively. Wheel traffic significantly decreased advance times, by a factor of 1.98, during the initial irrigations at planting with no effect on subsequent irrigations. Wetted cross‐sectional area in no‐till furrows was significantly greater than in clean‐till during sorghum irrigations, averaging 0.0206 and 0.0093 m 2 , respectively. However, these factors did not contribute to a consistent increase in infiltration in the no‐till treatments. Grain yields for sorghum were significantly greater in no‐till than clean‐till: 4147 and 3584 kg ha −1 , respectively, but clean‐till wheat yields (5414 kg ha −1 ) were significantly greater than no‐till yields (4657 kg ha −1 ). No‐till conserved more water during the fallow periods, but surface characteristics of planting wheat no‐till in sorghum residue may decrease uniformity over long furrows.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
No-till conserved significantly more soil water during fallow than clean-till.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- No‐tille0
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 3.0 cme0
- Comparator
- clean‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No‐till treatments conserved significantly more soil water (3.0 cm) during the fallow periods than clean‐till”
t0“wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
Water advance took 301 minutes under no-till versus 175 under clean-till.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- no‐tille0
- Outcome
- water advance timese0
- Value
- 301 and 175 mine0
- Comparator
- clean‐tille0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average water advance times to the end of the field were 301 and 175 min for no‐till and clean‐till, respectively”
t0“wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheel traffic significantly decreased water advance times at planting.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Wheel traffice0
- Outcome
- advance timese0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 1.98e0
- Qualifier
- initial irrigations at plantinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheel traffic significantly decreased advance times, by a factor of 1.98, during the initial irrigations at planting with no effect on subsequent irrigations”
t0“wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheel traffic had no effect on advance times in later irrigations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Wheel traffice0
- Outcome
- advance timese0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- subsequent irrigationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheel traffic significantly decreased advance times, by a factor of 1.98, during the initial irrigations at planting with no effect on subsequent irrigations”
t0“wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till sorghum furrows had significantly greater wetted cross-sectional area than clean-till furrows.
- Treatment
- no‐tille0
- Outcome
- Wetted cross‐sectional areae0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 0.0206 and 0.0093 m 2e0
- Comparator
- clean‐tille0
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wetted cross‐sectional area in no‐till furrows was significantly greater than in clean‐till during sorghum irrigations, averaging 0.0206 and 0.0093 m 2 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till did not consistently increase infiltration.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- no‐tille0
- Outcome
- infiltratione0
- Direction
- did not contribute to a consistent increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these factors did not contribute to a consistent increase in infiltration in the no‐till treatments”
t0“wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till significantly increased sorghum grain yield over clean-till.
- Treatment
- no‐tille0
- Outcome
- Grain yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4147 and 3584 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- clean‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yields for sorghum were significantly greater in no‐till than clean‐till: 4147 and 3584 kg ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Clean-till significantly increased wheat yield over no-till.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- clean‐tille0
- Outcome
- wheat yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5414 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- no‐tille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“clean‐till wheat yields (5414 kg ha −1 ) were significantly greater than no‐till yields (4657 kg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting wheat no-till into sorghum residue may decrease furrow uniformity.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- planting wheat no‐till in sorghum residuee0
- Outcome
- uniformity over long furrowse0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“surface characteristics of planting wheat no‐till in sorghum residue may decrease uniformity over long furrows”
t0“wheat ( Tritium aestivum L.)‐sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]‐fallow”
The same questions in other 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
- negative
- negative
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 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 →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.