Abstract
Climate change is one of the main challenges, and it poses a tough challenge to the agriculture industry globally. Additionally, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the main contributor to climate change; however, croplands are a prominent source of GHG emissions. Yet this complex challenge can be mitigated through climate-smart agricultural practices. Conservation tillage is commonly known to preserve soil and mitigate environmental change by reducing GHG emissions. Nonetheless, there is still a paucity of information on the influences of conservation tillage on wheat yield, soil properties, and GHG flux, particularly in the semi-arid Dingxi belt. Hence, in order to fill this gap, different tillage systems, namely conventional tillage (CT) control, straw incorporation with conventional tillage (CTS), no-tillage (NT), and stubble return with no-tillage (NTS), were laid at Dingxi, Gansu province of China, under a randomized complete block design with three replications to examine their impacts on yield, soil properties, and GHG fluxes. Results depicted that different conservative tillage systems (CTS, NTS, and NT) significantly ( p < 0.05) increased the plant height, number of spikes per plant, seed number per meter square, root yield, aboveground biomass yield, thousand-grain weight, grain yield, and dry matter yield compared with CT. Moreover, these conservation tillage systems notably improved the soil properties (soil gravimetric water content, water-filled pore space, water storage, porosity, aggregates, saturated hydraulic conductivity, organic carbon, light fraction organic carbon, carbon storage, microbial biomass carbon, total nitrogen, available nitrogen storage, microbial biomass nitrogen, total phosphorous, available phosphorous, total potassium, available potassium, microbial counts, urease, alkaline phosphatase, invertase, cellulase, and catalase) while decreasing the soil temperature and bulk density over CT. However, CTS, NTS, and NT had non-significant effects on ECe, pH, and stoichiometric properties (C:N ratio, C:P ratio, and N:P ratio). Additionally, conservation-based tillage regimes NTS, NT, and CTS significantly ( p < 0.05) reduced the emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) by 23.44, 19.57, and 16.54%, respectively, and decreased the greenhouse gas intensity by 23.20, 29.96, and 18.72%, respectively, over CT. We conclude that NTS is the best approach to increasing yield, soil and water conservation, resilience, and mitigation of agroecosystem capacity.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage significantly increased wheat plant height, spikes per plant and seeds per square meter relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- CTS, NTS, and NTe0
- Outcome
- plant height, number of spikes per plant, seed number per meter squaree0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“different conservative tillage systems (CTS, NTS, and NT) significantly ( p < 0.05) increased the plant height, number of spikes per plant, seed number per meter square, root yield, aboveground biomass yield, thousand-grain weight, grain yield, and dry matter yield compared with CT”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage significantly increased wheat root, aboveground biomass and dry matter yields relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTS, NTS, and NTe0
- Outcome
- root yield, aboveground biomass yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“different conservative tillage systems (CTS, NTS, and NT) significantly ( p < 0.05) increased the plant height, number of spikes per plant, seed number per meter square, root yield, aboveground biomass yield, thousand-grain weight, grain yield, and dry matter yield compared with CT”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage significantly increased wheat thousand-grain weight and grain yield relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTS, NTS, and NTe0
- Outcome
- thousand-grain weight, grain yield, and dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“different conservative tillage systems (CTS, NTS, and NT) significantly ( p < 0.05) increased the plant height, number of spikes per plant, seed number per meter square, root yield, aboveground biomass yield, thousand-grain weight, grain yield, and dry matter yield compared with CT”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage improved soil water content, pore space and water storage over conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systemse0
- Outcome
- soil gravimetric water content, water-filled pore space, water storagee0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these conservation tillage systems notably improved the soil properties (soil gravimetric water content, water-filled pore space, water storage, porosity, aggregates, saturated hydraulic conductivity”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“conventional tillage (CT) control”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage improved soil organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus properties over conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systemse1
- Outcome
- organic carbon, light fraction organic carbon, carbon storagee0
- Direction
- improvede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic carbon, light fraction organic carbon, carbon storage, microbial biomass carbon, total nitrogen, available nitrogen storage, microbial biomass nitrogen, total phosphorous, available phosphorous”
e1“these conservation tillage systems notably improved the soil properties”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage improved soil potassium, microbial counts and measured soil enzyme activities over conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systemse1
- Outcome
- total potassium, available potassium, microbial countse0
- Direction
- improvede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total potassium, available potassium, microbial counts, urease, alkaline phosphatase, invertase, cellulase, and catalase”
e1“these conservation tillage systems notably improved the soil properties”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage lowered soil temperature and bulk density relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conservation tillage systemse1
- Outcome
- soil temperature and bulk densitye0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreasing the soil temperature and bulk density over CT”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“conservation tillage systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage showed non-significant effects on soil electrical conductivity, pH and stoichiometric ratios.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTS, NTS, and NTe0
- Outcome
- ECe, pH, and stoichiometric propertiese0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTS, NTS, and NT had non-significant effects on ECe, pH, and stoichiometric properties (C:N ratio, C:P ratio, and N:P ratio)”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“conventional tillage (CT) control”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS reduced greenhouse gas emissions and net global warming potential by 23.44% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NTSe0
- Outcome
- emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gasese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 23.44e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTS, NT, and CTS significantly ( p < 0.05) reduced the emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) by 23.44, 19.57, and 16.54%, respectively”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“conventional tillage (CT) control”
Claim · model-written summary
NT reduced greenhouse gas emissions and net global warming potential by 19.57% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gasese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 19.57e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTS, NT, and CTS significantly ( p < 0.05) reduced the emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) by 23.44, 19.57, and 16.54%, respectively”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“conventional tillage (CT) control”
Claim · model-written summary
CTS reduced greenhouse gas emissions and net global warming potential by 16.54% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTSe0
- Outcome
- emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gasese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 16.54%e0
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NTS, NT, and CTS significantly ( p < 0.05) reduced the emission and net global warming potential of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) by 23.44, 19.57, and 16.54%, respectively”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“conventional tillage (CT) control”
Claim · model-written summary
NTS reduced greenhouse gas intensity by 23.20% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NTSe1
- Outcome
- greenhouse gas intensitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 23.20e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased the greenhouse gas intensity by 23.20, 29.96, and 18.72%, respectively, over CT”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“regimes NTS, NT, and CTS significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
NT reduced greenhouse gas intensity by 29.96% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- NTe1
- Outcome
- greenhouse gas intensitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 29.96e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased the greenhouse gas intensity by 23.20, 29.96, and 18.72%, respectively, over CT”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“regimes NTS, NT, and CTS significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
CTS reduced greenhouse gas intensity by 18.72% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTSe1
- Outcome
- greenhouse gas intensitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 18.72%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased the greenhouse gas intensity by 23.20, 29.96, and 18.72%, respectively, over CT”
t0“spring wheat”
e1“regimes NTS, NT, and CTS significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend NTS to increase yield and improve soil and water conservation and climate resilience.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- NTS is the best approach to increasing yield, soil and water conservation, resilience, and mitigation of agroecosystem capacitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We conclude that NTS is the best approach to increasing yield, soil and water conservation, resilience, and mitigation of agroecosystem capacity”
t0“spring wheat”
The same questions in other papers
organic · environment: emissions · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →tillage · environment: emissions · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →organic · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →tillage · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →tillage · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 papers →organic · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
53 papers more in this group
See all 57 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
- negative
- negative
- no effect
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.