Abstract
Conservation Agriculture is a farming system based on no mechanical soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and crop diversification. A study was carried out in an on-farm field trial set up in Meknes (Morocco) under a long-term no-till (NT) system to evaluate the residual effect of one-time occasional tillage (OT) on crop performance, soil water, and water-use efficiency (WUE) one and two years after OT implementation. Shallow and deep options of OT were compared with common NT practices (with crop residue retention and with crop residue removal) for two consecutive seasons of 2021–2022 (year 1) and 2022–2023 (year 2). The four tillage practices were implemented in November 2020. Three crops were studied each year: durum wheat ( Triticum durum ), faba bean ( Vicia faba minor), and chickpea ( Cicer arietinum ) all grown under NT in both the years and arranged in four crop rotations. Our findings show that grain yield of wheat and chickpea was negatively affected by OT for all years considered. In wheat, there was a grain yield loss of 18 and 20% for shallow and deep OT, respectively compared to NT with crop residue retention. In chickpea, the grain yield loss was as high as 47 and 49% for shallow and deep OT, respectively. Average soil water storage measured at 0–60 cm at sowing was also lower in deep OT (133 mm) compared to NT with crop residue retention (151 mm) for all years and rotations considered. Yet, in wheat year 1, deep OT slightly improved soil water content at 30 cm depth compared to NT treatments. The comparison of WUE between treatments showed that, under NT with crop residue retention, the crops produced more grain and aboveground biomass per mm of water. Wheat/faba bean rotation had a greater grain yield and WUE (all years considered) and overall greater soil water content (year 1), compared to the wheat/chickpea rotation. The results suggest that the effects of OT on crop performance and water productivity in the short term can be adverse. On the other hand, grain yield of wheat can be improved by a judicious choice of legume to be used as a preceding crop.
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
Shallow occasional tillage reduced wheat grain yield by 18% against no-till residue retention.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- shallowe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- losse0
- Value
- 18e0
- Comparator
- NT with crop residue retentione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In wheat, there was a grain yield loss of 18 and 20% for shallow and deep OT, respectively compared to NT with crop residue retention”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep occasional tillage reduced wheat grain yield by 20% against no-till residue retention.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- deep OTe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- losse0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Comparator
- NT with crop residue retentione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In wheat, there was a grain yield loss of 18 and 20% for shallow and deep OT, respectively compared to NT with crop residue retention”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow occasional tillage caused up to 47% chickpea grain yield loss.
Cicer arietinumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In chickpea, the grain yield loss was as high as 47 and 49% for shallow and deep OT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep occasional tillage caused up to 49% chickpea grain yield loss.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In chickpea, the grain yield loss was as high as 47 and 49% for shallow and deep OT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep occasional tillage had lower soil water storage, 133 mm versus 151 mm under no-till residue retention.
- Treatment
- deep OTe0
- Outcome
- soil water storagee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 133 mme0
- Qualifier
- 151 mme0
- Comparator
- NT with crop residue retentione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Average soil water storage measured at 0–60 cm at sowing was also lower in deep OT (133 mm) compared to NT with crop residue retention (151 mm) for all years and rotations considered”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep occasional tillage slightly improved wheat year-1 soil water content at 30 cm depth.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- deep OTe0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- year 1e0
- Comparator
- NT treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in wheat year 1, deep OT slightly improved soil water content at 30 cm depth compared to NT treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till residue retention produced more grain per mm of water.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“under NT with crop residue retention, the crops produced more grain and aboveground biomass per mm of water”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till residue retention produced more aboveground biomass per mm of water.
- Taxon
- the cropse0
- Treatment
- NT with crop residue retentione0
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“under NT with crop residue retention, the crops produced more grain and aboveground biomass per mm of water”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat/faba bean rotation gave greater grain yield than wheat/chickpea rotation.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Wheat/faba bean rotatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- wheat/chickpea rotatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat/faba bean rotation had a greater grain yield and WUE (all years considered) and overall greater soil water content (year 1), compared to the wheat/chickpea rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat/faba bean rotation gave greater WUE than wheat/chickpea rotation.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Wheat/faba bean rotatione0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- wheat/chickpea rotatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat/faba bean rotation had a greater grain yield and WUE (all years considered) and overall greater soil water content (year 1), compared to the wheat/chickpea rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat/faba bean rotation gave greater soil water content in year 1.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Wheat/faba bean rotatione0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- year 1e0
- Comparator
- wheat/chickpea rotatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat/faba bean rotation had a greater grain yield and WUE (all years considered) and overall greater soil water content (year 1), compared to the wheat/chickpea rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest choosing the preceding legume judiciously to improve wheat yield.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- judicious choice of legume to be used as a preceding crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield of wheat can be improved by a judicious choice of legume to be used as a preceding crop”
The same questions in other papers
Vicia faba · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →Vicia faba · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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 →rotation · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 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 →rotation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
297 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,116 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.