Abstract
Summary Avalon winter wheat was grown in 1983 on a light-textured, sandy loam (Cottenham series) which had a subsoil pan with a maximum dry bulk density of 1·8 g/cm 3 at 35 cm depth. This was destroyed on part of the site with a ‘Wye Double Digger’ so that crop growth in panned and pan-free soils could be compared. The interaction of the pan with soil water supply was studied by sheltering the crops during May, June and July and either withholding water completely or irrigating weekly back to field capacity. The pan had a major effect on the vertical extension rate of the root system as monitored both by coring and from observation tubes. Roots were largely confined above the pan until March, but compensatory growth occurred within this soil layer and the total length of root was unaffected. At anthesis, roots had reached a maximum depth of 100 cm in the panned soil compared with 140 cm in the pan-free soil. Early shoot growth and N content were substantially reduced by the pan because of the inaccessibility of mineral N in the subsoil. However, both the growth of the crop and N uptake recovered following top dressings of N fertilizer and, when water was not limiting, the pan had a negligible effect on grain yield. Root and shoot growth were reduced by the fixed shelter, but the imposed drought did ot affect water use by the crops until after anthesis when the root systems were already fully developed. Without irrigation, the crop growing on the double-dug soil yielded 5% more than that growing on the panned soil, but there was no evidence for extra water use from the subsoil by the former crop. The best treatment (double-dug with irrigation) outyielded the worst (panned soil with drought) by 8%.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
The pan slowed vertical root extension.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- pane0
- Outcome
- vertical extension rate of the root systeme0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The pan had a major effect on the vertical extension rate of the root system”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Roots remained mostly above the pan until March, with compensatory growth there.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Roots were largely confined above the pan until Marche0
- Qualifier
- compensatory growth occurred within this soil layere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Roots were largely confined above the pan until March, but compensatory growth occurred within this soil layer”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The pan did not change total root length.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- pane1
- Outcome
- total length of roote0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the total length of root was unaffected”
t0“winter wheat”
e1“The pan had a major effect on the vertical extension rate of the root system”
Claim · model-written summary
At anthesis, roots reached 100 cm in panned soil versus 140 cm in pan-free soil.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- panned soile0
- Outcome
- maximum depthe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 100 cme0
- Qualifier
- 140 cme0
- Comparator
- pan-free soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At anthesis, roots had reached a maximum depth of 100 cm in the panned soil compared with 140 cm in the pan-free soil”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The pan substantially reduced early shoot growth and N content.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- pane0
- Outcome
- Early shoot growth and N contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- inaccessibility of mineral N in the subsoile0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Early shoot growth and N content were substantially reduced by the pan because of the inaccessibility of mineral N in the subsoil”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop growth and N uptake recovered after N fertilizer top dressings.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- top dressings of N fertilizere0
- Outcome
- growth of the crop and N uptakee0
- Direction
- recoverede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both the growth of the crop and N uptake recovered following top dressings of N fertilizer”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
With adequate water, the pan had negligible effect on grain yield.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- pane0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- negligible effecte0
- Qualifier
- when water was not limitinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when water was not limiting, the pan had a negligible effect on grain yield”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The fixed shelter reduced root and shoot growth.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- fixed sheltere0
- Outcome
- Root and shoot growthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root and shoot growth were reduced by the fixed shelter”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Imposed drought did not affect water use until after anthesis.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- imposed droughte0
- Outcome
- water usee0
- Qualifier
- until after anthesise0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the imposed drought did ot affect water use by the crops until after anthesis”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Without irrigation, double-dug soil yielded 5% more than panned soil.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- double-dug soile0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 5%e0
- Qualifier
- Without irrigatione0
- Comparator
- panned soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Without irrigation, the crop growing on the double-dug soil yielded 5% more than that growing on the panned soil”
t0“winter wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
There was no evidence of extra subsoil water use by the double-dug crop.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- double-dugt1
- Outcome
- water use from the subsoile0
- Direction
- no evidence for extrae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no evidence for extra water use from the subsoil by the former crop”
t0“winter wheat”
t1“double-dug with irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Double-dug irrigated soil outyielded panned drought soil by 8%.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- double-dug with irrigatione0
- Outcome
- outyieldede0
- Direction
- outyieldede0
- Value
- 8%e0
- Comparator
- panned soil with droughte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best treatment (double-dug with irrigation) outyielded the worst (panned soil with drought) by 8%”
t0“winter wheat”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
145 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
202 papers more in this group
See all 206 papers →fertilization · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
662 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
751 papers more in this group
See all 755 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.