Paper · 2011 · Crop and Pasture Science

Recovery dynamics of rainfed winter wheat after livestock grazing 1. Growth rates, grain yields, soil water use and water-use efficiency

Matthew T. Harrison; John R. Evans; Hugh Dove; et al.

8
claims
18
verbatim quotes
60
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Detailed information on the growth dynamics, yield responses and soil water use of dual-purpose cereal crops after grazing is often required to devise guidelines for profitable grazing management. To increase the availability of such data, grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia. In 2007, cultivar Mackellar was grazed at low-short (LS, 33 sheep/ha for 31 days), heavy-short (HS, 67 sheep/ha for 31 days) or low-long (LL, 33 sheep/ha for 62 days) intensity-durations. In 2008, cultivars Mackellar and Naparoo were grazed at the HS intensity-duration. Aboveground net primary production (ANPP) of ungrazed Mackellar crops averaged 1181 g/m2. LS and HS grazing did not affect ANPP in 2007, but LL grazing in 2007 and HS grazing in 2008 treatments reduced ANPP by 20% (which included biomass removed by livestock). Average grain yield (381 g/m2) was not significantly affected by grazing. Grazing increased the proportion of water lost through soil evaporation but decreased transpiration, reducing shoot dry matter production per unit evapotranspiration by up to 22%. However, grazing did not affect grain yield per unit evapotranspiration. For rainfed wheat crops grown in temperate environments, greater biomass production occurred with shorter rather than longer grazing durations, irrespective of grazing intensities.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

LS and HS grazing did not affect winter wheat aboveground net primary production in 2007.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
LS and HS grazinge1
Outcome
ANPPe1
Direction
did not affecte1

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e1

“LS and HS grazing did not affect ANPP in 2007”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 700–745 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

LL grazing in 2007 and HS grazing in 2008 reduced winter wheat aboveground net primary production by 20%.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
LL grazing in 2007 and HS grazing in 2008e2
Outcome
ANPPe2
Direction
reducede2
Value
20%e2

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e2

“LL grazing in 2007 and HS grazing in 2008 treatments reduced ANPP by 20%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–823 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Grazing did not significantly affect average winter wheat grain yield.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
grazinge3
Outcome
grain yielde3
Direction
not significantly affectede3

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e3

“Average grain yield (381 g/m2) was not significantly affected by grazing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 871–943 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grazing increased the proportion of water lost through soil evaporation in winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
Grazinge4
Outcome
proportion of water lost through soil evaporatione4
Direction
increasede4

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e4

“Grazing increased the proportion of water lost through soil evaporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1016 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grazing decreased transpiration of winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
Grazinge4
Outcome
transpiratione5
Direction
decreasede5

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e4

“Grazing increased the proportion of water lost through soil evaporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1016 · show in text ↑
e5

“decreased transpiration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1021–1044 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grazing reduced shoot dry matter production per unit evapotranspiration by up to 22% in winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
Grazinge4
Outcome
shoot dry matter production per unit evapotranspiratione6
Direction
reducinge6
Value
22%e6

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e4

“Grazing increased the proportion of water lost through soil evaporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1016 · show in text ↑
e6

“decreased transpiration, reducing shoot dry matter production per unit evapotranspiration by up to 22%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1021–1123 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grazing did not affect grain yield per unit evapotranspiration of winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
grazinge7
Outcome
grain yield per unit evapotranspiratione7
Direction
did not affecte7

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e7

“grazing did not affect grain yield per unit evapotranspiration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1196 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter wheat biomass production was greater with shorter than with longer grazing durations, irrespective of grazing intensity.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
grazing durationse5
Outcome
biomass productione5
Direction
greatere5
Qualifier
irrespective of grazing intensitiese5
Comparator
longer grazing durationse5

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

“grazing experiments with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) were conducted near Canberra, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–337 · show in text ↑
e5

“greater biomass production occurred with shorter rather than longer grazing durations, irrespective of grazing intensities”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1377 · show in text ↑

grazing · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

70 papers: 34 positive, 36 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
    Average grain yield loss due to grazing was 0.52 Mg/ha for tall wheat cultivars

    Grazed Wheat Grain Yield Relationships · 1991 · compared with nongrazed system

    Opposite directionCited by this paper

66 papers more in this group

See all 70 papers →

grazing · physiology: gas exchange · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

grazing · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

grazing · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.