Abstract
Field experiment was undertaken during the rabi seasons of 2015–16 and 2016–17 to study the effect of tillage and irrigation interaction on soil water dynamics, root growth, yield and water use efficiency (WUE) of wheat in a maize-wheat rotation in a sandy loam soil. The treatments comprised of three levels of tillage as main plot [Conventional tillage (CT), Deep tillage at the interval of two years (DT) and No tillage with maize residue @ 5 t ha-1 (NT)] and three levels of irrigation as sub-plot [I1: 1 irrigation (CRI), I2: 3 Irrigations (CRI, Tillering, Flowering) and I3: 5 Irrigations (CRI, Tillering, Jointing, Flowering, Milk)] were evaluated in a split plot design. Results showed that no tillage with residue (NT) treatment maintained higher soil moisture content in the surface layer (0–15 cm) than that of conventional tillage (CT) and deep tillage (DT) but in lower layers (45–120 cm), soil moisture content under DT was higher than that of NT and CT. Profile moisture storage at 0–120 cm soil depth was the highest under DT followed by NT and CT, respectively. In both the years, seasonal evapo-transpiration under DT was higher than that of CT, followed by NT. The root length density (RLD) under DT was significantly higher than that of NT and CT by 12.5 and 40.7 per cent, respectively at 0–15 cm soil depth. The RLD increased significantly with increasing irrigation level at 0–15 cm soil depth. Grain yield of wheat during high rainfall year (2016–17) was higher than that of low rainfall year (2015–16) by 39.2 per cent due to higher water availability, lower maximum air temperature and more bright sunshine hours received during that period. In both the years, there was no significant difference among tillage treatments with respect to grain yield of wheat but it increased significantly with irrigation. However, during the year 2015–16, there was no significant difference in the grain yield due to I2 and I3 whereas during the year 2016–17, there was no significant difference in the grain yield between I1 and I2 irrigation levels. There was no significant difference among tillage treatments with respect to WUE of wheat in year 2015–16 but during 2016–17, WUE of wheat under DT was significantly higher than NT. During the year 2015–16, WUE of wheat decreased with the increase in irrigation levels but during the year 2016–17, there was no significant difference among the irrigation treatments with respect to WUE of wheat.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage with residue maintained higher surface soil moisture than conventional and deep tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- no tillage with residue (NT)e0
- Outcome
- soil moisture contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT) and deep tillage (DT)e0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no tillage with residue (NT) treatment maintained higher soil moisture content in the surface layer (0–15 cm) than that of conventional tillage (CT) and deep tillage (DT)”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage had higher soil moisture in lower layers than no tillage and conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- soil moisture contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- lower layers (45–120 cm)e0
- Comparator
- NT and CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in lower layers (45–120 cm), soil moisture content under DT was higher than that of NT and CT”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage had the highest profile moisture storage, followed by no tillage and conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- Profile moisture storagee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- 0–120 cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- NT and CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Profile moisture storage at 0–120 cm soil depth was the highest under DT followed by NT and CT, respectively”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal evapotranspiration was higher under deep tillage than conventional tillage, followed by no tillage.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- seasonal evapo-transpiratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CT, followed by NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both the years, seasonal evapo-transpiration under DT was higher than that of CT, followed by NT”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased root length density over no tillage by 12.5 per cent at 0–15 cm.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- root length density (RLD)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 12.5e0
- Qualifier
- 0–15 cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root length density (RLD) under DT was significantly higher than that of NT and CT by 12.5 and 40.7 per cent, respectively at 0–15 cm soil depth”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage increased root length density over conventional tillage by 40.7 per cent at 0–15 cm.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- root length density (RLD)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 40.7 per cente0
- Qualifier
- 0–15 cm soil depthe0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root length density (RLD) under DT was significantly higher than that of NT and CT by 12.5 and 40.7 per cent, respectively at 0–15 cm soil depth”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Root length density increased with increasing irrigation at 0–15 cm.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increasing irrigation levele0
- Outcome
- RLDe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 0–15 cm soil depthe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The RLD increased significantly with increasing irrigation level at 0–15 cm soil depth”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield was 39.2 per cent higher in the high rainfall year than the low rainfall year.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 39.2 per cente0
- Qualifier
- higher water availability, lower maximum air temperature and more bright sunshine hourse0
- Comparator
- low rainfall year (2015–16)e0
- Setting
- high rainfall year (2016–17)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield of wheat during high rainfall year (2016–17) was higher than that of low rainfall year (2015–16) by 39.2 per cent due to higher water availability, lower maximum air temperature and more bright sunshine hours received during that period”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage treatments did not differ significantly in wheat grain yield in either year.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- grain yield of wheate0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both the years, there was no significant difference among tillage treatments with respect to grain yield of wheat”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield increased significantly with irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- grain yield of wheate0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield of wheat but it increased significantly with irrigation”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield did not differ significantly between I2 and I3 in 2015–16.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- I2e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Qualifier
- 2015–16e0
- Comparator
- I3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the year 2015–16, there was no significant difference in the grain yield due to I2 and I3”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield did not differ significantly between I1 and I2 in 2016–17.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- I1e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Qualifier
- 2016–17e0
- Comparator
- I2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the year 2016–17, there was no significant difference in the grain yield between I1 and I2 irrigation levels”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage treatments did not differ significantly in wheat WUE in 2015–16.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- WUE of wheate0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Qualifier
- 2015–16e0
- Comparator
- tillage treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant difference among tillage treatments with respect to WUE of wheat in year 2015–16”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat WUE under deep tillage was significantly higher than under no tillage in 2016–17.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- DTe0
- Outcome
- WUE of wheate0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 2016–17e0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during 2016–17, WUE of wheat under DT was significantly higher than NT”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat WUE decreased as irrigation level increased in 2015–16.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increase in irrigation levelse0
- Outcome
- WUE of wheate0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- 2015–16e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the year 2015–16, WUE of wheat decreased with the increase in irrigation levels”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat WUE did not differ significantly among irrigation treatments in 2016–17.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- WUE of wheate0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Qualifier
- 2016–17e0
- Comparator
- irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“during the year 2016–17, there was no significant difference among the irrigation treatments with respect to WUE of wheat”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 papers →tillage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
299 papers more in this group
See all 303 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.