Paper · 2022 · Plants

The Effect of Monoculture, Crop Rotation Combinations, and Continuous Bare Fallow on Soil CO2 Emissions, Earthworms, and Productivity of Winter Rye after a 50-Year Period

Vaclovas Bogužas; Lina Skinulienė; Lina Marija Butkevičienė; et al.

6
claims
10
verbatim quotes
33
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

One of the main goals of the 21st century’s developing society is to produce the necessary amount of food while protecting the environment. Globally, particularly in Lithuania and other northern regions with similar climatic and soil conditions, there is a lack of data on the long-term effects of crop rotation under the current conditions of intensive farming and climate change. It has long been recognized that monocultures cause soil degradation compared to crop rotation. Research hypothesis: the long-term implementation of crop rotation makes a positive influence on the soil environment. The aim of our investigation was to compare the effects of a 50-year-long application of different crop rotations and monocultures on soil CO2 emissions, earthworms, and productivity of winter rye. Long-term stationary field experiments were established in 1966 at Vytautas Magnus University Experimental Station (54°53′ N, 23°50′ E). The study was conducted using intensive field rotation with row crops, green manure crop rotations, three-course rotation, and rye monoculture. Pre-crop had the largest impact on soil CO2 emissions, and more intensive soil CO2 emissions occurred at the beginning of winter rye growing season. Rye appeared not to be demanding in terms of pre-crops. However, its productivity decreased when grown in monoculture, and the optimal mineral fertilization remained lower than with crop rotation, but productivity remained stable.

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 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-crop had the largest impact on soil CO2 emissions.

Taxon
winter ryeSecale cerealet0
Treatment
Pre-crope0
Outcome
soil CO2 emissionse0
Direction
largest impacte0

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

Secale cereale
Secale cereale · TaxonLSDSL · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pre-crop had the largest impact on soil CO2 emissions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1129 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter rye”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 137–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil CO2 emissions were more intensive at the beginning of the winter rye growing season.

Taxon
winter ryeSecale cerealee0
Outcome
soil CO2 emissionse0
Direction
more intensivee0
Qualifier
beginning of winter rye growing seasone0

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

Secale cereale
Secale cereale · TaxonLSDSL · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“more intensive soil CO2 emissions occurred at the beginning of winter rye growing season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1135–1223 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter rye was not demanding in its pre-crops.

Outcome
not to be demanding in terms of pre-cropse0

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

Secale cereale
Secale cereale · TaxonLSDSL · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rye appeared not to be demanding in terms of pre-crops.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1225–1280 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter rye productivity decreased in monoculture.

Taxon
winter ryeSecale cerealet0
Treatment
monoculturee0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Secale cereale
Secale cereale · TaxonLSDSL · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“its productivity decreased when grown in monoculture”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1290–1342 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter rye”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 137–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Optimal mineral fertilization remained lower for monoculture than crop rotation.

Taxon
winter ryeSecale cerealet0
Outcome
optimal mineral fertilizatione0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
crop rotatione0

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

Secale cereale
Secale cereale · TaxonLSDSL · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the optimal mineral fertilization remained lower than with crop rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1348–1420 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter rye”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 137–147 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Productivity remained stable under the stated fertilization conditions.

Taxon
winter ryeSecale cerealet0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
remained stablee0

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

Secale cereale
Secale cereale · TaxonLSDSL · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“productivity remained stable”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1426–1454 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter rye”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 137–147 · show in text ↑

rotation · yield · Secale cereale (rye)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 10 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 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.