Abstract
Sowing density can have a strong impact on crop stand development during wheat growing cycle. In organic and low-input agriculture, and therefore with minimum or nil use of chemical herbicides, increased sowing density is expected to affect not only grain yield but also weed suppression. In this study we tested, under Mediterranean conditions, six common wheat cultivars (three modern and three heritage) and two three-component mixtures (arranged by combining the three modern or the three heritage cultivars). The different crop stands were tested at sowing densities of 250 (low) and 400 (high, similar to standard sowing density used by local farmers) viable seeds m–2 for two growing seasons. We did not detect a significant effect of crop stand diversity (single cultivars vs mixtures) on grain yield and weed suppression. Differences were ascribed to type of cultivars used (heritage vs modern). Compared to high sowing density, in modern cultivars grain yield did not decrease significantly with low sowing density, whereas in heritage cultivars it increased by 15.6%, possibly also because of 21.5% lower plant lodging. Weed biomass increased with low sowing density both in heritage and modern cultivar crop stand types. However, heritage crop stands had, on average, a lower weed biomass (56%) than modern crop stands. Moreover, weed biomass in heritage crop stands at low density (6.82±1.50 g m–2) was lower than that of modern cultivars at the same sowing density (15.54±3.35 g m–2), confirming the higher suppressive potential of the former. We can conclude that lower sowing density can be advisable when using heritage crop stands as it keeps productivity while decreasing plant lodging and maintaining weeds under control.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Single cultivars and mixtures did not differ significantly in grain yield and weed suppression.
- Taxon
- common wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- single cultivarse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- grain yield and weed suppressione0
- Comparator
- mixturese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We did not detect a significant effect of crop stand diversity (single cultivars vs mixtures) on grain yield and weed suppression”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
At low versus high sowing density, grain yield in modern wheat cultivars did not decrease significantly.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- modern cultivarse0
- Treatment
- low sowing densitye0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- did not decreasee0
- Comparator
- high sowing densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to high sowing density, in modern cultivars grain yield did not decrease significantly with low sowing density”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
At low versus high sowing density, grain yield increased 15.6% in heritage wheat cultivars.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- heritage cultivarse0
- Treatment
- low sowing densitye1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15.6%e0
- Comparator
- high sowing densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whereas in heritage cultivars it increased by 15.6%”
e1“Compared to high sowing density, in modern cultivars grain yield did not decrease significantly with low sowing density”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant lodging in heritage wheat cultivars was 21.5% lower at low sowing density.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- heritage cultivarse1
- Treatment
- low sowing densitye1
- Outcome
- plant lodginge0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 21.5%e0
- Comparator
- high sowing densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“possibly also because of 21.5% lower plant lodging”
e1“Compared to high sowing density, in modern cultivars grain yield did not decrease significantly with low sowing density, whereas in heritage cultivars it increased by 15.6%”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed biomass increased at low sowing density in heritage wheat crop stands.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- heritagee0
- Treatment
- low sowing densitye0
- Interactor
- Weede0weed
- Outcome
- Weed biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed biomass increased with low sowing density both in heritage and modern cultivar crop stand types”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed biomass increased at low sowing density in modern wheat crop stands.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- moderne0
- Treatment
- low sowing densitye0
- Interactor
- Weede0weed
- Outcome
- Weed biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed biomass increased with low sowing density both in heritage and modern cultivar crop stand types”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Heritage wheat crop stands had 56% lower weed biomass on average than modern stands.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- heritage crop standse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed biomasse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 56%e0
- Comparator
- modern crop standse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“heritage crop stands had, on average, a lower weed biomass (56%) than modern crop stands”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
At low sowing density, heritage wheat stands had weed biomass of 6.82±1.50 g m–2, lower than modern stands.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- heritage crop standse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed biomasse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 6.82±1.50 g m–2e0
- Qualifier
- 15.54±3.35 g m–2e0
- Comparator
- modern cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed biomass in heritage crop stands at low density (6.82±1.50 g m–2) was lower than that of modern cultivars at the same sowing density (15.54±3.35 g m–2)”
t0“common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise lower sowing density for heritage wheat crop stands to retain productivity, reduce lodging and control weeds.
- Taxon
- common wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- heritage crop standse0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- lower sowing densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower sowing density can be advisable when using heritage crop stands as it keeps productivity while decreasing plant lodging and maintaining weeds under control”
t0“common wheat”
The same questions in other papers
density · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →density · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
106 papers more in this group
See all 110 papers →density · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
375 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
494 papers more in this group
See all 498 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.