Abstract
Dairy farms located in the subtropical cereal belt of Australia rely on winter and summer cereal crops, rather than pastures, for their forage base. Crops are mostly established in tilled seedbeds and the system is vulnerable to fertility decline and water erosion, particularly over summer fallows. Field studies were conducted over 5 years on contrasting soil types, a Vertosol and Sodosol, in the 650-mm annual-rainfall zone to evaluate the benefits of a modified cropping program on forage productivity and the soil-resource base. Growing forage sorghum as a double-crop with oats increased total mean annual production over that of winter sole-crop systems by 40% and 100% on the Vertosol and Sodosol sites respectively. However, mean annual winter crop yield was halved and overall forage quality was lower. Ninety per cent of the variation in winter crop yield was attributable to fallow and in-crop rainfall. Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablab reduced fertiliser nitrogen (N) requirements and increased forage N concentration, but reduced overall annual yield. Compared with sole-cropped oats, double-cropping reduced the risk of erosion by extending the duration of soil water deficits and increasing the time ground was under plant cover. When grown as a sole-crop, well fertilised forage sorghum achieved a mean annual cumulative yield of 9.64 and 6.05 t DM/ha on the Vertosol and Sodosol, respectively, being about twice that of sole-cropped oats. Forage sorghum established using zero-tillage practices and fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crop achieved a significantly higher yield and forage N concentration than did the industry-standard forage sorghum (conventional tillage and 55 kg N/ha.crop) on the Vertosol but not on the Sodosol. On the Vertosol, mean annual yield increased from 5.65 to 9.64 t DM/ha (33 kg DM/kg N fertiliser applied above the base rate); the difference in the response between the two sites was attributed to soil type and fertiliser history. Changing both tillage practices and N-fertiliser rate had no affect on fallow water-storage efficiency but did improve fallow ground cover. When forage sorghum, grown as a sole crop, was replaced with lablab in 3 of the 5 years, overall forage N concentration increased significantly, and on the Vertosol, yield and soil nitrate-N reserves also increased significantly relative to industry-standard sorghum. All forage systems maintained or increased the concentration of soil nitrate-N (0–1.2-m soil layer) over the course of the study. Relative to sole-crop oats, alternative forage systems were generally beneficial to the concentration of surface-soil (0–0.1 m) organic carbon and systems that included sorghum showed most promise for increasing soil organic carbon concentration. We conclude that an emphasis on double- or summer sole-cropping rather than winter sole-cropping will advantage both farm productivity and the soil-resource base.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Forage sorghum double-cropped with oats increased total mean annual production by 40% over winter sole-crop systems on the Vertosol.
Verbatim
e0“Growing forage sorghum as a double-crop with oats increased total mean annual production over that of winter sole-crop systems by 40% and 100% on the Vertosol and Sodosol sites respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage sorghum double-cropped with oats increased total mean annual production by 100% over winter sole-crop systems on the Sodosol.
Verbatim
e0“Growing forage sorghum as a double-crop with oats increased total mean annual production over that of winter sole-crop systems by 40% and 100% on the Vertosol and Sodosol sites respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean annual winter crop yield was halved under the double-crop system.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“However, mean annual winter crop yield was halved and overall forage quality was lower”
Claim · model-written summary
Overall forage quality was lower under the double-crop system.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“However, mean annual winter crop yield was halved and overall forage quality was lower”
Claim · model-written summary
Ninety per cent of the variation in winter crop yield was attributable to fallow and in-crop rainfall.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“Ninety per cent of the variation in winter crop yield was attributable to fallow and in-crop rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing forage sorghum with the legume lablab reduced fertiliser nitrogen requirements.
- Treatment
- Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablabe0
- Outcome
- fertiliser nitrogen (N) requirementse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- forage sorghume0
LablabOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablab reduced fertiliser nitrogen (N) requirements and increased forage N concentration, but reduced overall annual yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing forage sorghum with lablab increased forage N concentration.
- Treatment
- Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablabe0
- Outcome
- forage N concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- forage sorghume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablab reduced fertiliser nitrogen (N) requirements and increased forage N concentration, but reduced overall annual yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing forage sorghum with lablab reduced overall annual yield.
- Treatment
- Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablabe0
- Outcome
- overall annual yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- forage sorghume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Replacing forage sorghum with the annual legume lablab reduced fertiliser nitrogen (N) requirements and increased forage N concentration, but reduced overall annual yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Double-cropping reduced the risk of erosion compared with sole-cropped oats, by extending the duration of soil water deficits and increasing ground cover time.
- Taxon
- oats
Avena sativae0 - Treatment
- double-croppinge0
- Outcome
- risk of erosione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- extending the duration of soil water deficits and increasing the time ground was under plant covere0
- Comparator
- sole-cropped oatse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with sole-cropped oats, double-cropping reduced the risk of erosion by extending the duration of soil water deficits and increasing the time ground was under plant cover”
Claim · model-written summary
Well fertilised sole-crop forage sorghum achieved mean annual cumulative yields of 9.64 t DM/ha on the Vertosol and 6.05 t DM/ha on the Sodosol, about twice that of sole-cropped oats.
Verbatim
e0“When grown as a sole-crop, well fertilised forage sorghum achieved a mean annual cumulative yield of 9.64 and 6.05 t DM/ha on the Vertosol and Sodosol, respectively, being about twice that of sole-cropped oats”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-tillage forage sorghum fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crop gave significantly higher yield on the Vertosol than industry-standard forage sorghum.
Verbatim
e0“Forage sorghum established using zero-tillage practices and fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crop achieved a significantly higher yield and forage N concentration than did the industry-standard forage sorghum (conventional tillage and 55 kg N/ha.crop) on the Vertosol but not on the Sodosol”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-tillage forage sorghum fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crop gave significantly higher forage N concentration on the Vertosol than industry-standard forage sorghum.
Verbatim
e0“Forage sorghum established using zero-tillage practices and fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crop achieved a significantly higher yield and forage N concentration than did the industry-standard forage sorghum (conventional tillage and 55 kg N/ha.crop) on the Vertosol but not on the Sodosol”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield and forage N concentration advantage of zero-tillage high-N forage sorghum was not found on the Sodosol.
- Taxon
- Forage sorghume0
- Treatment
- zero-tillage practices and fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crope0
- Outcome
- yield and forage N concentratione0
- Comparator
- industry-standard forage sorghum (conventional tillage and 55 kg N/ha.crop)e0
- Setting
- Sodosole0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Forage sorghum established using zero-tillage practices and fertilised at 175 kg N/ha.crop achieved a significantly higher yield and forage N concentration than did the industry-standard forage sorghum (conventional tillage and 55 kg N/ha.crop) on the Vertosol but not on the Sodosol”
Claim · model-written summary
On the Vertosol, mean annual yield increased from 5.65 to 9.64 t DM/ha (33 kg DM/kg N fertiliser applied above the base rate).
- Outcome
- mean annual yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- from 5.65 to 9.64 t DM/hae0
- Qualifier
- 33 kg DM/kg N fertiliser applied above the base ratee0
- Setting
- Vertosole0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“On the Vertosol, mean annual yield increased from 5.65 to 9.64 t DM/ha (33 kg DM/kg N fertiliser applied above the base rate)”
Claim · model-written summary
The difference in response between the two sites was attributed to soil type and fertiliser history.
- Outcome
- difference in the response between the two sitese0
- Qualifier
- soil type and fertiliser historye0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the difference in the response between the two sites was attributed to soil type and fertiliser history”
Claim · model-written summary
Changing tillage practices and N-fertiliser rate had no effect on fallow water-storage efficiency.
- Treatment
- tillage practices and N-fertiliser ratee0
- Outcome
- fallow water-storage efficiencye0
- Direction
- no affecte0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Changing both tillage practices and N-fertiliser rate had no affect on fallow water-storage efficiency but did improve fallow ground cover”
Claim · model-written summary
Changing tillage practices and N-fertiliser rate improved fallow ground cover.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Changing both tillage practices and N-fertiliser rate had no affect on fallow water-storage efficiency but did improve fallow ground cover”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing sole-crop forage sorghum with lablab in 3 of 5 years significantly increased overall forage N concentration.
- Treatment
- replaced with lablab in 3 of the 5 yearse0
- Outcome
- overall forage N concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- industry-standard sorghume0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When forage sorghum, grown as a sole crop, was replaced with lablab in 3 of the 5 years, overall forage N concentration increased significantly, and on the Vertosol, yield and soil nitrate-N reserves also increased significantly relative to industry-standard sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
On the Vertosol, replacing sorghum with lablab significantly increased yield and soil nitrate-N reserves relative to industry-standard sorghum.
- Treatment
- replaced with lablab in 3 of the 5 yearse0
- Outcome
- yield and soil nitrate-N reservese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- industry-standard sorghume0
- Setting
- Vertosole0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When forage sorghum, grown as a sole crop, was replaced with lablab in 3 of the 5 years, overall forage N concentration increased significantly, and on the Vertosol, yield and soil nitrate-N reserves also increased significantly relative to industry-standard sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
All forage systems maintained or increased the concentration of soil nitrate-N over the study.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“All forage systems maintained or increased the concentration of soil nitrate-N”
The same questions in other papers
Avena sativa · yield · SorghumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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 · nutrient: content · SorghumPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · SorghumPositive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · SorghumPositive and negative results
110 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
114 papers more in this group
See all 118 papers →nitrogen · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
286 papers more in this group
See all 290 papers →fertilization · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
417 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
442 papers more in this group
See all 446 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.