Abstract
Eight different soil tillage systems (TS) for winter wheat after soybean crop production were compared at the chernozem soil type in Croatian Baranya region in a 4-year period (2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005). Tillage systems were: CT) conventional tillage, based on autumn mouldboard ploughing; DH) autumn disc harrowing; CH) autumn disc harrowing + chiselling; NT) No-tillage; CSDW) DH for winter wheat, alternated with CT for previous crop soybean; CWDS) CT for wheat, DH for soybean; CsNw) NT for wheat, CT for soybean; and CwNs) CT for wheat, NT for soybean. The dry conditions experienced in 2002/2003 decreased at half winter wheat grain yield at treatments NT and CwNs. The most stable grain yields were obtained by CT, CH, and CSDW in the third of 4 experimental years. CsNw, DH and CWDS did not result in significant crop yield reduction when compared to CT. There was no striking regularity regarding applied TS at the grain yield components. The strongest effects on yield and yield components for winter wheat were due to the climate conditions. TS had a significant effect on the grain yield and crop population in the earing stage in all 4 experimental years. The biggest difference in stem height was determined between CWDS and CsNw. Mass of plant, number of grains per spike, and hectolitre mass were greater under CT than under other TS. Coefficient of tillering and mass of 1000 grains had approximate values for all applied TS. In conclusion, CH, CSDW, and CsNw produced similar or slightly better quality properties than CT and these systems could be presented as an even-handed replacement for soil tillage.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Dry conditions halved wheat grain yield under NT and CwNs in 2002/2003.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- dry conditionse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- halfe0
- Qualifier
- NT and CwNse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The dry conditions experienced in 2002/2003 decreased at half winter wheat grain yield at treatments NT and CwNs”
Claim · model-written summary
CT, CH and CSDW had the most stable grain yields in the third experimental year.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The most stable grain yields were obtained by CT, CH, and CSDW in the third of 4 experimental years”
Claim · model-written summary
CsNw, DH and CWDS had no significant yield reduction relative to CT.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“CsNw, DH and CWDS did not result in significant crop yield reduction when compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage effects on grain yield components lacked a consistent pattern.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“There was no striking regularity regarding applied TS at the grain yield components”
Claim · model-written summary
Climate conditions had the strongest effects on wheat yield and yield components.
- Taxon
- winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- yield and yield componentse0
- Qualifier
- climate conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The strongest effects on yield and yield components for winter wheat were due to the climate conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage significantly affected grain yield and crop population at earing in all four years.
Not reportedTaxonComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“TS had a significant effect on the grain yield and crop population in the earing stage in all 4 experimental years”
Claim · model-written summary
The greatest stem height difference was between CWDS and CsNw.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The biggest difference in stem height was determined between CWDS and CsNw”
Claim · model-written summary
CT produced greater plant mass, grains per spike and hectolitre mass than other tillage systems.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- Mass of plant, number of grains per spike, and hectolitre masse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- other TSe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Mass of plant, number of grains per spike, and hectolitre mass were greater under CT than under other TS”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillering coefficient and thousand-grain mass were similar across tillage systems.
- Outcome
- Coefficient of tillering and mass of 1000 grainse0
- Qualifier
- approximate values for all applied TSe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Coefficient of tillering and mass of 1000 grains had approximate values for all applied TS”
Claim · model-written summary
CH, CSDW and CsNw had similar or slightly better quality properties than CT.
- Treatment
- CH, CSDW, and CsNwe0
- Outcome
- quality propertiese0
- Direction
- similar or slightly bettere0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“CH, CSDW, and CsNw produced similar or slightly better quality properties than CT”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose CH, CSDW and CsNw as replacements for CT.
- Outcome
- replacement for soil tillagee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“these systems could be presented as an even-handed replacement for soil tillage”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
536 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
628 papers more in this group
See all 632 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- 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.