Abstract
There is a growing interest in the Mediterranean regions to switch to conservation agriculture (CA) to address climate change and soil deterioration issues. The novelty of this study lies in the quality of the supply chain, from the raw material (durum wheat grain) to the ready-to-sell product (spaghetti), under long-term CA, and using two varieties over two years of study. This study aims to investigate the impact of two soil management systems (SM) (CA after 10/11 (since 2009–2010) years switching vs. conventional tillage (CT)) on grain quality, dough texture profile, and pasta quality of two Tunisian durum wheat varieties (Karim and Monastir) in a 2-year-long experiment (2019 and 2020). The results showed that the SM had a significant impact on the grain quality in both years in terms of protein content and wet gluten, which were, respectively, lower under CA (11.92% vs. 11.15% for protein content) and (18.75% vs. 17.68% for wet gluten) in the wet year. These parameters increased in the dry year but they were higher under CA (15.70% vs. 14.42 ± 0.94% for protein content) and (26.00% vs. 23.20% for wet gluten). These results have, in turn, affected the dough quality (springiness, chewiness, and cohesiveness) and pasta cooking time and decreased the pasta cooking loss and water absorption index. In terms of the variety (V) factor, “Karim” variety in the dry year had a higher protein content and better dough quality than “Monastir” variety, and it reduced the pasta cooking time. In addition, the pasta yellow index (b*) from grains grown under CA was always higher than those in the CT system (23.99 vs. 19.72% and 25.24 vs. 22.19% in 2019 and 2020, respectively). The interaction between SM and V was significant in both years only for the dough hardness and pasta b* parameters. In conclusion, long-term CA may be a crucial solution in the dry season to promote food quality and achieve sustainable agriculture goals.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation agriculture, durum wheat grain protein content was lower than under conventional tillage in the wet year (11.92% vs. 11.15%).
- Taxon
- Durum Wheat
Triticum turgidum subsp. durumt0 - Treatment
- CAe1
- Outcome
- protein contente1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 11.92% vs. 11.15%e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
- Setting
- wet yeare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e0“conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“lower under CA (11.92% vs. 11.15% for protein content) and (18.75% vs. 17.68% for wet gluten) in the wet year”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation agriculture, wet gluten was lower than under conventional tillage in the wet year (18.75% vs. 17.68%).
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CAe1
- Outcome
- wet glutene1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 18.75% vs. 17.68%e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
- Setting
- wet yeare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e0“conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“lower under CA (11.92% vs. 11.15% for protein content) and (18.75% vs. 17.68% for wet gluten) in the wet year”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation agriculture, protein content was higher than under conventional tillage in the dry year (15.70% vs. 14.42 ± 0.94%).
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CAe2
- Outcome
- protein contente2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 15.70% vs. 14.42 ± 0.94%e2
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
- Setting
- dry yeare2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e0“conventional tillage (CT)”
e2“These parameters increased in the dry year but they were higher under CA (15.70% vs. 14.42 ± 0.94% for protein content) and (26.00% vs. 23.20% for wet gluten)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation agriculture, wet gluten was higher than under conventional tillage in the dry year (26.00% vs. 23.20%).
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CAe2
- Outcome
- wet glutene2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 26.00% vs. 23.20%e2
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
- Setting
- dry yeare2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e0“conventional tillage (CT)”
e2“These parameters increased in the dry year but they were higher under CA (15.70% vs. 14.42 ± 0.94% for protein content) and (26.00% vs. 23.20% for wet gluten)”
Claim · model-written summary
The Karim variety had a higher protein content than Monastir in the dry year.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Material
- Karime3
- Outcome
- protein contente3
- Direction
- highere3
- Setting
- dry yeare3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e3“Karim” variety in the dry year had a higher protein content and better dough quality”
Claim · model-written summary
The Karim variety had better dough quality than Monastir in the dry year.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Material
- Karime3
- Outcome
- dough qualitye3
- Direction
- bettere3
- Setting
- dry yeare3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e3“Karim” variety in the dry year had a higher protein content and better dough quality”
Claim · model-written summary
The Karim variety reduced pasta cooking time.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Material
- Karime3
- Outcome
- pasta cooking timee4
- Direction
- reducede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e3“Karim” variety in the dry year had a higher protein content and better dough quality”
e4“it reduced the pasta cooking time”
Claim · model-written summary
Dough quality (springiness, chewiness and cohesiveness) was affected by the soil management systems.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CAe1
- Outcome
- dough qualitye5
- Direction
- affectede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e1“lower under CA (11.92% vs. 11.15% for protein content) and (18.75% vs. 17.68% for wet gluten) in the wet year”
e5“These results have, in turn, affected the dough quality (springiness, chewiness, and cohesiveness) and pasta cooking time and decreased the pasta cooking loss and water absorption index”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conservation agriculture, pasta cooking loss and water absorption index were decreased compared with conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CAe1
- Outcome
- pasta cooking loss and water absorption indexe5
- Direction
- decreasede5
- Comparator
- conventional tillage (CT)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e0“conventional tillage (CT)”
e1“lower under CA (11.92% vs. 11.15% for protein content) and (18.75% vs. 17.68% for wet gluten) in the wet year”
e5“These results have, in turn, affected the dough quality (springiness, chewiness, and cohesiveness) and pasta cooking time and decreased the pasta cooking loss and water absorption index”
Claim · model-written summary
Pasta cooking time was affected by the soil management systems.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- CAe1
- Outcome
- pasta cooking timee5
- Direction
- affectede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e1“lower under CA (11.92% vs. 11.15% for protein content) and (18.75% vs. 17.68% for wet gluten) in the wet year”
e5“These results have, in turn, affected the dough quality (springiness, chewiness, and cohesiveness) and pasta cooking time and decreased the pasta cooking loss and water absorption index”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between soil management and variety was significant for dough hardness and pasta b* parameters.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Treatment
- SM and Ve6
- Outcome
- dough hardness and pasta b* parameterse6
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e6“The interaction between SM and V was significant in both years only for the dough hardness and pasta b* parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term conservation agriculture may be a crucial solution in the dry season to promote food quality.
- Taxon
- Durum WheatTriticum turgidum subsp. durumt0
- Outcome
- food qualitye7
- Setting
- dry seasone7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Durum Wheat”
e7“long-term CA may be a crucial solution in the dry season to promote food quality”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: content · Triticum turgidum (rivet wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.