Paper · 2018 · Canadian Journal of Soil Science

Optimizing combining green manures and pelletized manure for organic spring wheat production

Mohammed Z. Alam; Derek H. Lynch; Gilles Tremblay; et al.

8
claims
13
verbatim quotes
11
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Well-planned crop rotations and targeted use of organic amendments are critical to success in organic wheat production. The impact of green manure (GMr) type, GMr termination timing, and “Acti-Sol” [pelletized dehydrated poultry manure (DPM); 5-2-3] on organic wheat productivity and quality was evaluated from 2014 to 2016 in Truro, NS, and Saint-Mathieu-de-Beloeil, QC. Crops prior to wheat were soybean or GMr of hairy vetch/oat (HVO), common vetch/oat (CVO), and red clover (RC) (NS site), and HVO, red clover/oat (RCO), and oat (QC site). Trials were split-split-plot designs with treatments of precrops, GMr termination (fall vs. spring), and DPM at 0, 40, 80, and 120 kg total N ha −1 . Wheat yields ranged from 1500 to 1800 kg ha −1 if unfertilized with DPM and following soybean or oat precrops. All legume GMrs (HVO, CVO, and RC/RCO) and DPM applications increased grain yield (2000–4200 kg ha −1 ) and protein content (13%–16%), wheat total N uptake [49–60 kg N ha −1 (QC); 87–125 kg N ha −1 (NS)] and soil mineral N content mid-season and postharvest, and responses were consistently greatest following HVO. Timing of GMr incorporation largely had no impact. Applying DPM at 80 kg N ha −1 was an effective substitute for a GMr precrop.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Unfertilized wheat following soybean or oat yielded 1500 to 1800 kg per hectare.

Treatment
unfertilized with DPMe0
Outcome
Wheat yieldse0
Value
1500 to 1800 kg ha −1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wheat yields ranged from 1500 to 1800 kg ha −1 if unfertilized with DPM and following soybean or oat precrops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–803 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manures and DPM increased wheat grain yield.

Treatment
All legume GMrs (HVO, CVO, and RC/RCO) and DPM applicationse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2000–4200 kg ha −1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All legume GMrs (HVO, CVO, and RC/RCO) and DPM applications increased grain yield (2000–4200 kg ha −1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 805–908 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–81 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manures and DPM increased wheat protein content.

Treatment
All legume GMrs (HVO, CVO, and RC/RCO) and DPM applicationse0
Outcome
protein contente0
Direction
increasede0
Value
13%–16%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All legume GMrs (HVO, CVO, and RC/RCO) and DPM applications increased grain yield (2000–4200 kg ha −1 ) and protein content (13%–16%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 805–938 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–81 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manures and DPM increased wheat total nitrogen uptake.

Treatment
DPM applicationse0
Outcome
wheat total N uptakee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“DPM applications increased grain yield (2000–4200 kg ha −1 ) and protein content (13%–16%), wheat total N uptake [49–60 kg N ha −1 (QC); 87–125 kg N ha −1 (NS)]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–1008 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Legume green manures and DPM increased soil mineral nitrogen content.

Treatment
DPM applicationse0
Outcome
soil mineral N contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“DPM applications increased grain yield (2000–4200 kg ha −1 ) and protein content (13%–16%), wheat total N uptake [49–60 kg N ha −1 (QC); 87–125 kg N ha −1 (NS)] and soil mineral N content mid-season and postharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–1062 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Responses were greatest after hairy vetch and oat green manure.

Treatment
HVOe0
Outcome
responsese0
Direction
greateste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“responses were consistently greatest following HVO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1068–1118 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–81 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green manure incorporation timing largely had no impact.

Treatment
Timing of GMr incorporatione0
Outcome
impacte0
Direction
no impacte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Timing of GMr incorporation largely had no impact”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1120–1169 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–81 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DPM at 80 kg nitrogen per hectare effectively substituted for green manure precrop.

Treatment
DPM at 80 kg N ha −1e0
Outcome
effective substitutee0
Comparator
a GMr precrope0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Applying DPM at 80 kg N ha −1 was an effective substitute for a GMr precrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1246 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–81 · show in text ↑

Trifolium pratense · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Vicia villosa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

Trifolium pratense · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 10 positive, 6 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

Vicia sativa · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Vicia villosa · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Vicia sativa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

566 papers: 501 positive, 65 negative or no effect

500 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

562 papers more in this group

See all 566 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

959 papers: 854 positive, 105 negative or no effect

853 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

955 papers more in this group

See all 959 papers →

8 of 9 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.