Abstract
To analyze effects of straw returning and compaction on seeding emergence,yield and quality of wheat after rice,an two-factor experiment of straw returning and compaction with 4 treatments including rice straw returning with compaction( S1R1),rice straw returning with no compaction( S1R0),no rice straw returning with compaction( S0R1),and no rice straw returning with no compaction( S0R0),was carried out under field condition. Results showed that the average rate of seeding emergence in rice straw returning treatment was 25. 1% lower than that in no rice straw returning treatment,which caused the decrease in number of effective spikes per hectare accordingly. However,its grain yield was not significantly affected owning to a slight increase in kernel number per spike and 1 000- kernel weight. Meanwhile,the crude protein content and flour extraction rate of wheat grain were increased by 12. 7% and 5. 0% respectively under rice straw returning treatment,however,gluten content,dough development time,and the dough stable period were not changed. The rate of seeding emergence with compaction was 39. 0% higher than that with no compaction under rice straw returning,and the yield increased by 16. 5% due to the slight increase synchronously in number of spikes per hectare,kernel number per spike,and 1000- kernel weight. Furthermore,the main quality indexes of wheat grain under straw returning with compaction were improved slightly,such as water adsorption,flour yield,gluten content,dough development time,and the dough stable period. Hence,the yield and quality of wheat grain after rice can be improved by applying compaction appropriately under straw returning condition in a rice-wheat rotation system. It is vary significant for promoting straw returning and improving the production level of wheat following rice.
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
Rice straw return reduced wheat seedling emergence by 25. 1%.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- rice straw returning treatmente0
- Outcome
- rate of seeding emergencee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 25. 1%e0
- Comparator
- no rice straw returning treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average rate of seeding emergence in rice straw returning treatment was 25. 1% lower than that in no rice straw returning treatment”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw return reduced effective spikes per hectare.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- rice straw returninge1
- Outcome
- number of effective spikes per hectaree0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which caused the decrease in number of effective spikes per hectare accordingly.”
t0“Wheat”
e1“the average rate of seeding emergence in rice straw returning treatment was 25. 1% lower than that in no rice straw returning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw return did not significantly affect grain yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- rice straw returninge1
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However,its grain yield was not significantly affected owning to a slight increase in kernel number per spike and 1 000- kernel weight.”
t0“Wheat”
e1“the average rate of seeding emergence in rice straw returning treatment was 25. 1% lower than that in no rice straw returning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw return slightly increased kernels per spike and thousand-kernel weight.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- rice straw returninge1
- Outcome
- kernel number per spike and 1 000- kernel weighte0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a slight increase in kernel number per spike and 1 000- kernel weight.”
t0“Wheat”
e1“the average rate of seeding emergence in rice straw returning treatment was 25. 1% lower than that in no rice straw returning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw return increased grain crude protein content by 12. 7%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- rice straw returning treatmente0
- Outcome
- crude protein contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12. 7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the crude protein content and flour extraction rate of wheat grain were increased by 12. 7% and 5. 0% respectively under rice straw returning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw return increased wheat flour extraction rate by 5. 0%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- rice straw returning treatmente0
- Outcome
- flour extraction ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5. 0%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the crude protein content and flour extraction rate of wheat grain were increased by 12. 7% and 5. 0% respectively under rice straw returning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice straw return left gluten content, dough development and stability unchanged.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- rice straw returning treatmente1
- Outcome
- gluten content,dough development time,and the dough stable periode0
- Direction
- not changede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gluten content,dough development time,and the dough stable period were not changed.”
t0“Wheat”
e1“the crude protein content and flour extraction rate of wheat grain were increased by 12. 7% and 5. 0% respectively under rice straw returning treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Compaction raised emergence under straw return by 39. 0%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- compactione0
- Outcome
- rate of seeding emergencee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 39. 0%e0
- Comparator
- no compactione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rate of seeding emergence with compaction was 39. 0% higher than that with no compaction under rice straw returning”
t0“Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Compaction raised wheat yield under straw return by 16. 5%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield increased by 16. 5% due to the slight increase synchronously in number of spikes per hectare,kernel number per spike,and 1000- kernel weight.”
t0“Wheat”
e1“The rate of seeding emergence with compaction was 39. 0% higher than that with no compaction under rice straw returning”
Claim · model-written summary
Compaction slightly increased spikes, kernels per spike and thousand-kernel weight.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- compactione1
- Outcome
- number of spikes per hectare,kernel number per spike,and 1000- kernel weighte0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the slight increase synchronously in number of spikes per hectare,kernel number per spike,and 1000- kernel weight.”
t0“Wheat”
e1“The rate of seeding emergence with compaction was 39. 0% higher than that with no compaction under rice straw returning”
Claim · model-written summary
Compaction slightly improved several wheat quality measures under straw return.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- straw returning with compactione0
- Outcome
- water adsorption,flour yield,gluten content,dough development time,and the dough stable periode0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the main quality indexes of wheat grain under straw returning with compaction were improved slightly,such as water adsorption,flour yield,gluten content,dough development time,and the dough stable period.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended compaction under straw return to improve wheat yield and quality.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- applying compaction appropriately under straw returning conditione0
- Outcome
- yield and quality of wheat graine0
- Direction
- improvede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield and quality of wheat grain after rice can be improved by applying compaction appropriately under straw returning condition”
The same questions in other papers
Oryza sativa · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →Oryza sativa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
127 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
150 papers more in this group
See all 154 papers →Oryza sativa · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
Oryza sativa · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →organic · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
67 papers more in this group
See all 71 papers →organic · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →organic · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →tillage · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.