Paper · 2007 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

Zero tillage and nitrogen fertiliser application in wheat and barley on a Vertosol in a marginal cropping area of south-west Queensland

G. A. Thomas; R. C. Dalal; E. J. Weston; et al.

9
claims
12
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Winter cereal cropping is marginal in south-west Queensland because of low and variable rainfall and declining soil fertility. Increasing the soil water storage and the efficiency of water and nitrogen (N) use is essential for sustainable cereal production. The effect of zero tillage and N fertiliser application on these factors was evaluated in wheat and barley from 1996 to 2001 on a grey Vertosol. Annual rainfall was above average in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 and below average in 2000 and 2001. Due to drought, no crop was grown in the 2000 winter cropping season. Zero tillage improved fallow soil water storage by a mean value of 20 mm over 4 years, compared with conventional tillage. However, mean grain yield and gross margin of wheat were similar under conventional and zero tillage. Wheat grain yield and/or grain protein increased with N fertiliser application in all years, resulting in an increase in mean gross margin over 5 years from $86/ha, with no N fertiliser applied, to $250/ha, with N applied to target =13% grain protein. A similar increase in gross margin occurred in barley where N fertiliser was applied to target malting grade. The highest N fertiliser application rate in wheat resulted in a residual benefit to soil N supply for the following crop. This study has shown that profitable responses to N fertiliser addition in wheat and barley can be obtained on long-term cultivated Vertosols in south-west Queensland when soil water reserves at sowing are at least 60% of plant available water capacity, or rainfall during the growing season is above average. An integrative benchmark for improved N fertiliser management appears to be the gross margin/water use of ~$1/ha.mm. Greater fallow soil water storage or crop water use efficiency under zero tillage has the potential to improve winter cereal production in drier growing seasons than experienced during the period of this study.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage increased fallow soil water storage by 20 mm versus conventional tillage.

Treatment
Zero tillagee0
Outcome
fallow soil water storagee0
Direction
improvede0
Value
20 mme0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Zero tillage improved fallow soil water storage by a mean value of 20 mm over 4 years, compared with conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 572–693 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean wheat grain yield was similar under conventional and zero tillage.

Treatment
zero tillagee0
Outcome
mean grain yielde0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
conventionale0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“mean grain yield and gross margin of wheat were similar under conventional and zero tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–795 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean wheat gross margin was similar under conventional and zero tillage.

Treatment
zero tillagee0
Outcome
gross margine0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
conventionale0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“mean grain yield and gross margin of wheat were similar under conventional and zero tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–795 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilizer increased wheat grain yield and/or grain protein in all years.

Treatment
N fertiliser applicatione0
Outcome
grain yield and/or grain proteine0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wheat grain yield and/or grain protein increased with N fertiliser application in all years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 797–888 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat gross margin rose from $86/ha without N to $250/ha with N targeting 13% protein.

Treatment
N applied to target =13% grain proteine0
Outcome
mean gross margine0
Direction
increasee0
Value
$250/hae0
Qualifier
$86/hae0
Comparator
no N fertiliser appliede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increase in mean gross margin over 5 years from $86/ha, with no N fertiliser applied, to $250/ha, with N applied to target =13% grain protein”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–1047 · show in text ↑
e1

“Wheat grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 797–814 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley gross margin similarly increased with N targeting malting grade.

Treatment
N fertiliser was applied to target malting gradee0
Outcome
gross margine0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A similar increase in gross margin occurred in barley where N fertiliser was applied to target malting grade”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1049–1157 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest N rate in wheat gave residual soil N benefit to the next crop.

Treatment
highest N fertiliser application ratee0
Outcome
soil N supply for the following crope0
Direction
benefite0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest N fertiliser application rate in wheat resulted in a residual benefit to soil N supply for the following crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1280 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N fertilizer was profitable for wheat and barley when sowing water was at least 60% of capacity or growing season rainfall was above average.

Treatment
N fertiliser additione0
Outcome
profitable responsese0
Direction
profitablee0
Qualifier
at least 60% of plant available water capacitye0
Setting
south-west Queenslande0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“profitable responses to N fertiliser addition in wheat and barley can be obtained on long-term cultivated Vertosols in south-west Queensland when soil water reserves at sowing are at least 60% of plant available water capacity, or rainfall during the growing season is above average”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1308–1590 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest a gross margin per water use benchmark of about $1/ha.mm.

Outcome
gross margin/water usee0
Value
~$1/ha.mme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“An integrative benchmark for improved N fertiliser management appears to be the gross margin/water use of ~$1/ha.mm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1592–1707 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat and barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–68 · show in text ↑

processing · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 7 positive, 4 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

tillage · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

142 papers: 118 positive, 24 negative or no effect

117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

138 papers more in this group

See all 142 papers →

fertilization · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

550 papers: 473 positive, 77 negative or no effect

472 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

546 papers more in this group

See all 550 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

566 papers: 501 positive, 65 negative or no effect

500 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

562 papers more in this group

See all 566 papers →

tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.