Abstract
Under water‐limited conditions, increasing water use efficiency (WUE) is essential for successful crop production. A 7‐yr study (1977–1982, and 1985) to evaluate tillage and tillage timing effects on soil water storage, crop water use, and grain yield of winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) and spring green pea ( Pisum sativum L.) in rotation, was conducted near Pendleton, OR. Treatments included (i) fall plow (FP)–fall moldboard plow after wheat and after pea, (ii) maximum tillage (MT)–fall roto‐till after wheat and fall sweep after pea, (iii) spring plow (SP)–spring moldboard plow after wheat and fall moldboard plow after pea, and (iv) minimum tillage (MinT)–no‐till (NT) after wheat and fall sweep after pea. During the wheat phase, water storage efficiency was 44, 40, 38, and 34%, for FP, MT, SP, and MinT, respectively. Corresponding values during the pea phase were 50, 53, 59, and 57%, for FP, MT, SP, and MinT, respectively. Wheat used all of the stored water and an additional 31, 41, 43, and 61% more water than water stored under FP, MT, SP and MinT, respectively. Pea used 71, 67, 67, and 60% of stored water under FP, MT, SP and MinT, respectively. Wheat and pea yields under MT, FP, and SP were not different. Lowest yield was obtained under MinT during both wheat and pea phases. WUE was highly correlated with yield and was lowest under MinT. Improving weed control, retaining stubble for soil erosion control, and reducing sweep operations in MinT should improve yields in this treatment.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yield was lowest under minimum tillage (MinT) than under MT, FP and SP.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- MinTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Comparator
- MT, FP, and SPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat and pea yields under MT, FP, and SP were not different. Lowest yield was obtained under MinT during both wheat and pea phases”
Claim · model-written summary
Pea yield was lowest under minimum tillage (MinT) than under MT, FP and SP.
- Taxon
- pea
Lathyrus oleraceuse0 - Treatment
- MinTe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Comparator
- MT, FP, and SPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat and pea yields under MT, FP, and SP were not different. Lowest yield was obtained under MinT during both wheat and pea phases”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yields under MT, FP and SP were not different.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- MT, FP, and SPe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Qualifier
- were not differente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat and pea yields under MT, FP, and SP were not different”
Claim · model-written summary
Pea yields under MT, FP and SP were not different.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse0
- Treatment
- MT, FP, and SPe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Qualifier
- were not differente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat and pea yields under MT, FP, and SP were not different”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was highly correlated with yield in wheat and pea.
- Taxon
- wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- WUEe5
- Qualifier
- highly correlated with yielde5
- Comparator
- yielde5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during both wheat and pea phases”
e5“WUE was highly correlated with yield and was lowest under MinT”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was lowest under minimum tillage in wheat and pea.
- Taxon
- wheat and peaLathyrus oleraceusTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- MinTe5
- Outcome
- WUEe5
- Direction
- loweste5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during both wheat and pea phases”
e5“WUE was highly correlated with yield and was lowest under MinT”
Claim · model-written summary
Water storage efficiency in the wheat phase was 44, 40, 38, and 34% for FP, MT, SP and MinT.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- FP, MT, SP, and MinTe3
- Outcome
- water storage efficiencye3
- Value
- 44, 40, 38, and 34%e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“During the wheat phase, water storage efficiency was 44, 40, 38, and 34%, for FP, MT, SP, and MinT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water storage efficiency in the pea phase was 50, 53, 59, and 57% for FP, MT, SP and MinT.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse4
- Treatment
- FP, MT, SP, and MinTe4
- Outcome
- water storage efficiencye3
- Value
- 50, 53, 59, and 57%e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“During the wheat phase, water storage efficiency was 44, 40, 38, and 34%, for FP, MT, SP, and MinT, respectively”
e4“Corresponding values during the pea phase were 50, 53, 59, and 57%, for FP, MT, SP, and MinT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat used all stored water and an additional 31, 41, 43, and 61% more water than water stored under FP, MT, SP and MinT.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- FP, MT, SP and MinTe2
- Outcome
- more watere2
- Value
- 31, 41, 43, and 61%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Wheat used all of the stored water and an additional 31, 41, 43, and 61% more water than water stored under FP, MT, SP and MinT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Pea used 71, 67, 67, and 60% of stored water under FP, MT, SP and MinT.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse1
- Treatment
- FP, MT, SP and MinTe1
- Outcome
- of stored watere1
- Value
- 71, 67, 67, and 60%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Pea used 71, 67, 67, and 60% of stored water under FP, MT, SP and MinT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control, stubble retention and fewer sweep operations should improve yields under minimum tillage.
Verbatim
t0“Tillage Effects on Water Use and Grain Yield of Winter Wheat and Green Pea in Rotation”
e6“Improving weed control, retaining stubble for soil erosion control, and reducing sweep operations in MinT should improve yields in this treatment”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- 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.