Abstract
Abstract Grazing annual forages in dryland cropping systems has been used to integrate crop and livestock systems, rejuvenate soils, enhance in‐field nutrient cycling and soil organic carbon (SOC), and increase net returns by eliminating harvest expenses and feed delivery. However, cattle ( Bos taurus ) could potentially degrade soil physical properties by increasing compaction and reducing water infiltration in no‐tillage (NT) systems. Minimum tillage (MT) may help correct some of these potential soil quality concerns. The objective of this study was to quantify MT effects on soil properties, forage mass, and weeds compared to NT in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS. The experiment had two tillage treatments, NT and MT (sweep plow to a depth of 5–13 cm twice during summer fallow), in a grazed continuous winter triticale cropping system. Bulk density was greater in June, pre‐till (1.31 g cm −3 ), compared to August, post‐till (1.23 g cm −3 ), across tillage treatments. The mean weight diameter of dry aggregates decreased, and wind‐erodible fraction increased with MT. Across years, the mean weight diameter of water‐stable aggregates was greater with NT compared to MT. The SOC stocks did not differ between tillage practices near the soil surface, but MT increased SOC at the 5‐ to 15‐cm depth. Nitrate (NO 3 ‐N) concentration was 28% higher with MT compared to NT across depths at the August sampling time. Soil pH was slightly lower in NT (5.81) compared to MT (5.94). Penetration resistance was high due to frequently dry soil conditions, but there were no differences between tillage systems. Early‐season forage biomass was greater in MT compared to NT in one out of two seasons. Our findings suggest that MT could be used to mitigate adverse effects of grazing on soil bulk density in NT systems but could cause short‐term decreases in dry and wet aggregate stability and increased wind‐erodible fraction.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
MT decreased the mean weight diameter of dry aggregates compared with NT.
- Taxon
- winter triticale
×Triticosecalee0 - Treatment
- MTe2
- Outcome
- mean weight diameter of dry aggregatese1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Comparator
- NTe2
- Setting
- near Jetmore, KSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e1“The mean weight diameter of dry aggregates decreased, and wind‐erodible fraction increased with MT”
e2“two tillage treatments, NT and MT”
Claim · model-written summary
MT increased wind-erodible fraction compared with NT.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- MTe2
- Outcome
- wind‐erodible fractione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- NTe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e1“The mean weight diameter of dry aggregates decreased, and wind‐erodible fraction increased with MT”
e2“two tillage treatments, NT and MT”
Claim · model-written summary
NT had greater water-stable aggregate mean weight diameter than MT across years.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- NTe3
- Outcome
- mean weight diameter of water‐stable aggregatese3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Comparator
- MTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e3“Across years, the mean weight diameter of water‐stable aggregates was greater with NT compared to MT”
Claim · model-written summary
SOC stocks did not differ between tillage practices near the soil surface.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- tillage practicese4
- Outcome
- SOC stockse4
- Direction
- did not differe4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e4“The SOC stocks did not differ between tillage practices near the soil surface”
Claim · model-written summary
MT increased SOC at the 5-15 cm depth.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- MTe5
- Outcome
- SOCe5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Qualifier
- 5‐ to 15‐cm depthe5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e5“but MT increased SOC at the 5‐ to 15‐cm depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrate concentration was 28% higher with MT than with NT across depths at the August sampling time.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- MTe6
- Outcome
- Nitrate (NO 3 ‐N) concentratione6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 28%e6
- Qualifier
- across depths at the August sampling timee6
- Comparator
- NTe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e6“Nitrate (NO 3 ‐N) concentration was 28% higher with MT compared to NT across depths at the August sampling time”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH was slightly lower under NT than under MT.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- NTe7
- Outcome
- Soil pHe7
- Direction
- slightly lowere7
- Value
- 5.81e7
- Comparator
- MTe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e7“Soil pH was slightly lower in NT (5.81) compared to MT (5.94)”
Claim · model-written summary
Penetration resistance did not differ between tillage systems.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- tillage systemse1
- Outcome
- Penetration resistancee1
- Direction
- no differencese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e1“Penetration resistance was high due to frequently dry soil conditions, but there were no differences between tillage systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Early-season forage biomass was greater under MT than under NT in one of two seasons.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- MTe1
- Outcome
- Early‐season forage biomasse1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Qualifier
- in one out of two seasonse1
- Comparator
- NTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e1“Early‐season forage biomass was greater in MT compared to NT in one out of two seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
MT could be used to mitigate adverse effects of grazing on soil bulk density in NT systems.
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- MTe1
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e1“MT could be used to mitigate adverse effects of grazing on soil bulk density in NT systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulk density was greater in June, before tillage, than in August, after tillage (1.31 g cm −3 versus 1.23 g cm −3).
- Taxon
- winter triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- Bulk densitye1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 1.31 g cm −3e1
- Qualifier
- compared to August, post‐till (1.23 g cm −3 )e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a grazed winter triticale [× Triticosecale Wittm . ex A. Camus ( Secale × Triticum )] annual forage system from 2020 to 2022 near Jetmore, KS”
e1“Bulk density was greater in June, pre‐till (1.31 g cm −3 ), compared to August, post‐till (1.23 g cm −3 ), across tillage treatments”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · disease · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
tillage · growth · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
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.