Abstract
Abstract Better cropping and residue management systems are needed to improve precipitation‐use efficiency, minimize ground water depletion by irrigation, reduce pumping costs, and conserve energy. An irrigated winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)‐dryland grain sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor L. (Moench)] cropping system was evaluated from 1972 to 1978 for water storage between wheat harvest and sorghum planting time and for subsequent grain sorghum growth and yields. No‐tillage, sweep, and disk methods were used during the 11‐month period between crops for wheat residue management and weed control. Precipitation stored as soil water during the 11 months of fallow averaged 35, 23, and 15%; available soil water contents to the 1.8‐m depth at sorghum planting averaged 21.7, 17.0, and 15.2 cm; sorghum grain yields averaged 3,140, 2,500, and 1,930 kg/ha; and water‐use efficiencies (WUE) for sorghum grain averaged 89, 77, and 66 kg/ha‐cm for the respective treatments. Sorghum forage yields were slightly higher than grain yields and, therefore, WUE for forage production were higher than for grain. The WUE for forage, however, decreased in the same order as for grain. Based on March 1978 production costs and grain prices, net returns (excluding land, taxes, and interest costs) for sorghum production were four and two times greater with no‐tillage and sweep tillage, respectively, than with disk tillage, the most widely used tillage method after irrigated wheat in the Southern Great Plains.
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
Precipitation stored as soil water during fallow was 35%, 23% and 15% under no-tillage, sweep and disk management.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- No-tillage, sweep, and disk methodse2
- Outcome
- Precipitation stored as soil watere1
- Value
- 35, 23, and 15%e1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: one claim for the three treatments; values follow the stated order no-tillage, sweep, disk
Verbatim
e0“cropping system was evaluated from 1972 to 1978 for water storage between wheat harvest and sorghum planting time”
e2“No-tillage, sweep, and disk methods were used”
e1“Precipitation stored as soil water during the 11 months of fallow averaged 35, 23, and 15%”
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil water at sorghum planting was 21.7, 17.0 and 15.2 cm under no-tillage, sweep and disk management.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- No-tillage, sweep, and disk methodse2
- Outcome
- available soil water contentse3
- Value
- 21.7, 17.0, and 15.2 cme4
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: one claim for the three treatments; values follow the stated order no-tillage, sweep, disk
Verbatim
e0“cropping system was evaluated from 1972 to 1978 for water storage between wheat harvest and sorghum planting time”
e2“No-tillage, sweep, and disk methods were used”
e3“available soil water contents”
e4“at sorghum planting averaged 21.7, 17.0, and 15.2 cm”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain sorghum yields were 3,140, 2,500 and 1,930 kg/ha under no-tillage, sweep and disk management.
- Taxon
- grain sorghum
Sorghum bicolore7 - Treatment
- No-tillage, sweep, and disk methodse2
- Outcome
- sorghum grain yieldse3
- Value
- 3,140, 2,500, and 1,930 kg/hae3
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: one claim for the three treatments; values follow the stated order no-tillage, sweep, disk
Verbatim
e7“for subsequent grain sorghum growth and yields”
e2“No-tillage, sweep, and disk methods were used”
e3“sorghum grain yields averaged 3,140, 2,500, and 1,930 kg/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain water-use efficiency was 89, 77 and 66 kg/ha-cm under no-tillage, sweep and disk management.
- Taxon
- grain sorghumSorghum bicolore7
- Treatment
- No-tillage, sweep, and disk methodse2
- Outcome
- WUEe4
- Value
- 89, 77, and 66e4
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: one claim for the three treatments; values follow the stated order no-tillage, sweep, disk; unit kg/ha-cm is not in the cited quote
Verbatim
e7“for subsequent grain sorghum growth and yields”
e2“No-tillage, sweep, and disk methods were used”
e4“(WUE) for sorghum grain averaged 89, 77, and 66”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum forage yields were slightly higher than grain yields.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Sorghum forage yields were slightly higher than grain yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Water-use efficiency for forage production was higher than for grain in sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Sorghum forage yields were slightly higher than grain yields”
e6“WUE for forage production were higher than for grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Water-use efficiency for forage decreased across treatments in the same order as for grain in sorghum.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Sorghum forage yields were slightly higher than grain yields”
e7“The WUE for forage, however, decreased in the same order as for grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns for sorghum with no-tillage were four times greater than with disk tillage.
- Treatment
- no-tillagee6
- Outcome
- net returnse6
- Direction
- greatere6
- Value
- four and two timese6
- Qualifier
- excluding land, taxes, and interest costse6
- Comparator
- disk tillagee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: value is the joint literal "four and two times" for no-tillage (four) and sweep (two); the sweep claim is c9
Verbatim
e6“net returns (excluding land, taxes, and interest costs) for sorghum production were four and two times greater with no-tillage and sweep tillage, respectively, than with disk tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns for sorghum with sweep tillage were two times greater than with disk tillage.
- Treatment
- sweep tillagee6
- Outcome
- net returnse6
- Direction
- greatere6
- Value
- two timese6
- Qualifier
- excluding land, taxes, and interest costse6
- Comparator
- disk tillagee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“net returns (excluding land, taxes, and interest costs) for sorghum production were four and two times greater with no-tillage and sweep tillage, respectively, than with disk tillage”
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
- positive
- positive
- positive
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 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.