Abstract
The prolonged effect of no-tillage (NT) and conventional tillage (CT) treatment on durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.), continuously grown in Southern Italy, has been evaluated in experimental fields for sixteen years (1994/95-2009/10) to ascertain whether the yields and quality of the grain as well as some soil characteristics had changed. The average grain yield in CT (2.70 ± 0.96 t ha-1) and NT (2.63 ± 0.74 t ha-1) treatment was not significant. CT treatment showed higher values of plant height and grain weight (74.2 cm and 43.2 g) than NT (71.0 cm and 41.8 g). Regarding to the semolina quality, the values of the gluten index and the dough strength (W parameter) as well as the protein content and the yellow index were not significantly different for the NT and CT treatments. As for soil moisture, the NT treatment stored in the soil profile, and over time, about 13% more water than the CT one. In the upper soil layer of the NT treatment the SOC value (16.0 ± 2.2 g kg-1) was 13.2% higher than CT one (14.2 ± 1.2 g kg-1) while the CT treatment (13.7 ± 0.5 g kg-1) showed in the lower soil layer a SOC value of 30.2% higher than the NT one (9.6 ± 1.9 g kg-1). Hence the prolonged no-tillage adoption in conditions of continuous durum wheat cultivation, even with slight losses in yield but not in the quality of grain or semolina, would seem sustainable.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Mean grain yields under conventional and no tillage were not significantly different.
- Taxon
- durum wheat
Triticum turgidum subsp. durumt0 - Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- average grain yielde0
- Value
- 2.63 ± 0.74 t ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 2.70 ± 0.96 t ha-1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average grain yield in CT (2.70 ± 0.96 t ha-1) and NT (2.63 ± 0.74 t ha-1) treatment was not significant”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage produced taller plants than no tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CT treatmente0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 74.2 cme0
- Qualifier
- 71.0 cme0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT treatment showed higher values of plant height and grain weight (74.2 cm and 43.2 g) than NT (71.0 cm and 41.8 g)”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage increased grain weight over no tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CT treatmente0
- Outcome
- grain weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 43.2 ge0
- Qualifier
- 41.8 ge0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT treatment showed higher values of plant height and grain weight (74.2 cm and 43.2 g) than NT (71.0 cm and 41.8 g)”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Gluten index, dough strength, and protein content did not differ significantly by tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- gluten index and the dough strength (W parameter) as well as the protein contente0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the values of the gluten index and the dough strength (W parameter) as well as the protein content and the yellow index were not significantly different for the NT and CT treatments”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellow index did not differ significantly by tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- yellow indexe0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the values of the gluten index and the dough strength (W parameter) as well as the protein content and the yellow index were not significantly different for the NT and CT treatments”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage stored about 13% more soil water than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- NT treatmente0
- Outcome
- watere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the NT treatment stored in the soil profile, and over time, about 13% more water than the CT one”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Upper-layer soil organic carbon under no tillage was 13.2% higher than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- NT treatmente0
- Outcome
- SOC valuee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 13.2%e0
- Qualifier
- upper soil layere0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the upper soil layer of the NT treatment the SOC value (16.0 ± 2.2 g kg-1) was 13.2% higher than CT one (14.2 ± 1.2 g kg-1)”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower-layer soil organic carbon under conventional tillage was 30.2% higher than no tillage.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CT treatmente0
- Outcome
- SOC valuee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 30.2%e0
- Qualifier
- lower soil layere0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the CT treatment (13.7 ± 0.5 g kg-1) showed in the lower soil layer a SOC value of 30.2% higher than the NT one (9.6 ± 1.9 g kg-1)”
t0“Durum Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered prolonged no tillage sustainable in continuous durum wheat.
- Taxon
- durum wheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durume0
- Outcome
- prolonged no-tillage adoptione0
- Qualifier
- in conditions of continuous durum wheat cultivatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hence the prolonged no-tillage adoption in conditions of continuous durum wheat cultivation, even with slight losses in yield but not in the quality of grain or semolina, would seem sustainable”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: chemistry · Triticum turgidum (rivet wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · quality: protein · Triticum turgidum (rivet wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum turgidum (rivet wheat)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 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.