Paper · 1999 · Agronomy Journal

Increased Dryland Cropping Intensity with No‐Till Barley

William F. Schillinger; R. James Cook; Robert I. Papendick

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
42
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

For most of a century, the wide spread practice of growing only one crop every other year in a tillage‐based wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–fallow rotation has degraded soils and contributed to environmental problems in low‐precipitation (<350 mm annual) dryland regions of the inland Pacific Northwest of the USA. Many growers in this 2‐million‐ha cropland area are increasing the intensity of cropping with spring crops, but most use conventional tillage (CT) for seedbed preparation. The agronomic performance of spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), sown into CT seedbeds with double‐disk drills or into standing stubble with several types of no‐till (NT) drills (hoe, single disk, and notched coulter), was determined in two experiments conducted both in 1996 and 1997 where the previous crop was either winter wheat or spring barley. We measured stand establishment, seed‐zone temperature, soil water, dry biomass accumulation, rhizoctonia root rot, surface residue retention, and grain yield components. Plant stand , dry biomass accumulation , and spike density as single independent variables, and combined in a multiple regression model , were strongly correlated ( P < 0.001) to grain yield. Early‐season seed‐zone temperatures were cooler under NT, but seed‐zone water was slightly higher with CT. Low spike density consistently occurred in a wide row spacing (406 mm) NT drill treatment, and the highest overall yields were obtained with NT drills with rows spaced 255 mm or less. Rhizoctonia root rot was severe on seminal roots in all treatments in three out of four trials, but did not appear to limit yields, possibly due to healthy crown roots and favorable growing conditions. No‐till spring sowing into undisturbed standing stubble (2420–5230 kg ha −1 ) can produce grain yields equal to or exceeding those under CT and can provide environmental and potential soil quality benefits for low‐precipitation dryland farming areas in the inland Pacific Northwest.

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 8

Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Stand, biomass and spike density correlated with yield.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Organ / stage
Plant stande1
Outcome
grain yielde1

Not reportedDirection

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

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“Plant stand , dry biomass accumulation , and spike density as single independent variables, and combined in a multiple regression model , were strongly correlated ( P < 0.001) to grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1009–1199 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till seed zones were cooler.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment
NTe1
Outcome
seed‐zone temperaturese1
Direction
coolere1
Comparator
CTe1

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

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“Early‐season seed‐zone temperatures were cooler under NT, but seed‐zone water was slightly higher with CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1306 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional tillage had slightly more seed-zone water.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment
CTe1
Outcome
seed‐zone watere1
Direction
slightly highere1
Comparator
NTe1

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

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“Early‐season seed‐zone temperatures were cooler under NT, but seed‐zone water was slightly higher with CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1306 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wide-row no-till drilling gave low spike density.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment
wide row spacing (406 mm) NT drill treatmente1
Outcome
spike densitye1
Direction
Lowe1

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

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“Low spike density consistently occurred in a wide row spacing (406 mm) NT drill treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1308–1397 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till rows at most 255 mm gave highest yields.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment
NT drills with rows spaced 255 mm or lesse1
Outcome
overall yieldse1
Direction
higheste1

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

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“the highest overall yields were obtained with NT drills with rows spaced 255 mm or less”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1403–1490 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root rot was severe in three of four trials.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Interactor
RhizoctoniaRhizoctoniae1pathogen
Outcome
Rhizoctonia root rote1
Value
three out of four trialse1

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 ↗
Rhizoctonia
Rhizoctonia · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTashkoskip · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“Rhizoctonia root rot was severe on seminal roots in all treatments in three out of four trials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1492–1586 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root rot did not appear to limit yields.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Interactor
RhizoctoniaRhizoctoniae1pathogen
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
did not appear to limite1

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 ↗
Rhizoctonia
Rhizoctonia · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryTashkoskip · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“Rhizoctonia root rot was severe on seminal roots in all treatments in three out of four trials, but did not appear to limit yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1492–1622 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-till sowing can equal or exceed CT yields.

Taxon
spring barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment
No‐till spring sowing into undisturbed standing stubble (2420–5230 kg ha −1 )e1
Outcome
grain yieldse1
Direction
equal to or exceedinge1
Comparator
CTe1

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

“spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 515–550 · show in text ↑
e1

“No‐till spring sowing into undisturbed standing stubble (2420–5230 kg ha −1 ) can produce grain yields equal to or exceeding those under CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1694–1833 · show in text ↑

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

31 papers: 17 positive, 14 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

sowing time · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

70 papers: 39 positive, 31 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

66 papers more in this group

See all 70 papers →

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

97 papers: 73 positive, 24 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 73 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

93 papers more in this group

See all 97 papers →

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

161 papers: 105 positive, 56 negative or no effect

104 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 13 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

157 papers more in this group

See all 161 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.