Abstract
In semiarid dryland farming regions, No‐till and intensified crop rotations may improve water use. Our objective was to determine water use efficiency (WUE) and precipitation use efficiency (PUE) for spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.; SW) grown in crop sequences representing different levels of intensification, under minimum (Min‐till) or No‐till. Root zone (0–122 cm) water at planting (SWP) was 2.76 cm higher for two‐ and three‐phase sequences under Min‐till than continuous spring wheat (CSW), and sequences with fallow averaged 2.65 cm higher than those without. Conversely, SWP was unaffected by sequence under No‐till, with less effect of fallow. Root zone water at harvest was unaffected by the number of crop phases or fallow under Min‐till. However, values for CSW exceeded the two‐ or three‐phase sequences by 1.57 and 2.53 cm under No‐till, and sequences without fallow averaged 1.52 cm more than those with fallow. The highest WUE (8.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 water) was observed when SW was grown in three‐phase sequences compared with 7.7 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 water, for CSW and SW‐fallow. Spring wheat under Min‐till had higher WUE in sequences with fallow, but no effects of fallow occurred with No‐till. The lowest PUE (near 3 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation) and no effects of tillage were found in sequences with fallow. However, SW in continuously cropped sequences had PUE between 5.5 and 6.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation and was higher under No‐till. Both WUE and PUE are affected by intensification but may also be influenced by patterns of weather. Core Ideas Profile water varied as an interaction between crop sequence and tillage. With fallow, soil water changed little the winter prior to planting. Crop water use and yields were lower under continuous cropping than with fallow. Water use efficiency was highest for three‐phase sequences but varied with yield. Continuous cropping resulted in more efficient use of precipitation over the study.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Under minimum tillage, planting root-zone water was 2.76 cm higher in two- and three-phase sequences than continuous wheat.
- Taxon
- Spring Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- two‐ and three‐phase sequencese0
- Outcome
- water at plantinge0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.76 cme0
- Qualifier
- under Min‐tille0
- Comparator
- continuous spring wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root zone (0–122 cm) water at planting (SWP) was 2.76 cm higher for two‐ and three‐phase sequences under Min‐till than continuous spring wheat (CSW)”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under minimum tillage, fallow sequences averaged 2.65 cm more water at planting.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- sequences with fallowe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.65 cme0
- Comparator
- those withoute0
Not reportedOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sequences with fallow averaged 2.65 cm higher than those without”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under no-till, crop sequence did not affect planting water.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- sequence under No‐tille0
- Outcome
- SWPe0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SWP was unaffected by sequence under No‐till”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under minimum tillage, harvest root-zone water was unaffected by phase number or fallow.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- number of crop phases or fallowe0
- Outcome
- Root zone water at harveste0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root zone water at harvest was unaffected by the number of crop phases or fallow under Min‐till.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under no-till, continuous wheat had 1.57 cm more harvest water than two-phase sequences.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CSWe0
- Outcome
- valuese0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Value
- 1.57e0
- Qualifier
- under No‐tille0
- Comparator
- two‐e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“values for CSW exceeded the two‐ or three‐phase sequences by 1.57 and 2.53 cm under No‐till”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under no-till, continuous wheat had 2.53 cm more harvest water than three-phase sequences.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CSWe0
- Outcome
- valuese0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Value
- 2.53 cme0
- Comparator
- three‐phase sequencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“values for CSW exceeded the two‐ or three‐phase sequences by 1.57 and 2.53 cm under No‐till”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Sequences without fallow had 1.52 cm more harvest water than fallow sequences.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- sequences without fallowe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 1.52 cme0
- Comparator
- those with fallowe0
Not reportedOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sequences without fallow averaged 1.52 cm more than those with fallow”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Three-phase sequences had the highest water-use efficiency, 8.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 water.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- three‐phase sequencese0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 8.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 watere0
- Qualifier
- 7.7 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 watere0
- Comparator
- CSW and SW‐fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest WUE (8.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 water) was observed when SW was grown in three‐phase sequences compared with 7.7 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 water, for CSW and SW‐fallow.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
With minimum tillage, fallow sequences had higher WUE.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- sequences with fallowe0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spring wheat under Min‐till had higher WUE in sequences with fallow”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Under no-till, fallow had no effect on WUE.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- fallowe0
- Direction
- no effectse0
Not reportedComparatorOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effects of fallow occurred with No‐till”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Fallow sequences had the lowest PUE, near 3 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- PUEe0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- near 3 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitatione0
- Qualifier
- sequences with fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest PUE (near 3 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation) and no effects of tillage were found in sequences with fallow.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect PUE in fallow sequences.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Direction
- no effectse0
Not reportedComparatorOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effects of tillage were found in sequences with fallow”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuously cropped wheat had PUE of 5.5 to 6.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- PUEe0
- Value
- between 5.5 and 6.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitatione0
- Qualifier
- continuously cropped sequencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SW in continuously cropped sequences had PUE between 5.5 and 6.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
In continuously cropped sequences, PUE was higher under no-till.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- No‐tille0
- Outcome
- PUEe0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SW in continuously cropped sequences had PUE between 5.5 and 6.4 kg grain ha −1 mm −1 precipitation and was higher under No‐till”
t0“Spring Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
poly(hydroxyalkanoate) · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →rotation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →rotation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 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.