2021
DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2021.1928090
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of different tillage systems on soil properties, and yield and yield components of barley

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
2
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
2
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Table (3) depicts the presence of a considerable superiority of the local black variety in the characteristics of (SL) (5.80 cm), (NS.m 2 ) (450.80 spikes/m 2 ), (GY) (228.30 g) and (HI) (39.26 %) on the white variety, which superiority in (LAF) (13.23 cm 2 ), (NG/S) (17.50) and (SY) (375.40 g) were significantly different between the two cultivars, whereas traits plant height, (1000WG) and (BY) were not significant between the two cultivars. This result is also consistent with that of [4][5][6][7][8][9]. The depth of planting (8 cm) is clearly superior in most parameters, including (PH) (60.11 cm), (NS.m 2 ) (408.40 m 2 ), (NG/S) (19.62), (BY) (632.10 g/m 2 ), (SY) (399.70 g/m 2 ) and (GY) (232.40 g/m 2 ), whereas depth (4 cm) was considerably superior than depth (8 cm) in the characteristic of (1000WG) (37.75 g) and the other traits did not show significant differences between the two planting depths, according to [12].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Table (3) depicts the presence of a considerable superiority of the local black variety in the characteristics of (SL) (5.80 cm), (NS.m 2 ) (450.80 spikes/m 2 ), (GY) (228.30 g) and (HI) (39.26 %) on the white variety, which superiority in (LAF) (13.23 cm 2 ), (NG/S) (17.50) and (SY) (375.40 g) were significantly different between the two cultivars, whereas traits plant height, (1000WG) and (BY) were not significant between the two cultivars. This result is also consistent with that of [4][5][6][7][8][9]. The depth of planting (8 cm) is clearly superior in most parameters, including (PH) (60.11 cm), (NS.m 2 ) (408.40 m 2 ), (NG/S) (19.62), (BY) (632.10 g/m 2 ), (SY) (399.70 g/m 2 ) and (GY) (232.40 g/m 2 ), whereas depth (4 cm) was considerably superior than depth (8 cm) in the characteristic of (1000WG) (37.75 g) and the other traits did not show significant differences between the two planting depths, according to [12].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The results presented in Table (2) for the Telkef site show that the local black variety superiority the local white variety in characteristics of (PH) (62.28 cm), (SL) (6.05 cm), (NS.m 2 ) (464.90), (SY) (246.90 g), and (HI) (41.68 %), while the local white cultivar superiority the (LB) cultivar in characteristics of (LAF) (13.86 cm 2 ), (NG/S) (17.93) and (SY) (391.10 g) were significantly different between the two cultivars investigated, however there were no significant changes in (1000WG), (BY) and (HI). This conclusion is consistent with [4][5][6][7][8][9]. In characteristics of planting depths, it was discovered that depth (8 cm) was significantly superior to depth (8 cm) in the traits of (PH) (62.28 cm), (NS.m 2 ) (420.70 m 2 ), (BY) (647.10 gm/m 2 ), (SY) (404.80 g/m 2 ) and (SY) (242.30 gm/m 2 ) whereas depth (4 cm) was significantly superior to depth (8 cm) in the trait of (1000WG) (38.64 g).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Researchers reported that the amount of irrigation water decreased and the soil moisture retention increased with the decrease of evaporation due to the crop-residues left in the soil covering the soil surface in direct sowing according to conventional tillage (Qi et al, 2018). In addition, direct sowing increases soil organic matter and reduces fertilizer input, thus making positive contributions to crop yield (Mousavi-Boogar et al, 2021). The yield and quality of the crop is directly governed by photosynthetic activities (Kacar et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…З огляду на концепцію стійкого розвитку сучасна методологія обробітку ґрунту повинна враховувати не лише здешевлення, а й вплив на навколишнє середовище, забезпечувати його збереження та відновлення[8][9][10]. Через це система обробітку ґрунту, що використовується, має об'єднувати економічні інтереси виробників сільськогосподарської продукції із впровадженням заходів із попередження та ліквідації ерозійних процесів, відновлення гумусу, підвищення дефляційної стійкості та зниження кислотності сільськогосподарських угідь[11][12][13].Сучасні способи обробітку ґрунту повинні враховувати альтернативні методи, цінності, переконання тощо, ніж економічне зростання, оскільки воно не бере до уваги екологічну загрозу, яка є результатом використання інтенсивних технологій, не є джерелом безпечності виробленої сільськогосподарської продукції[14,15]. Результативність цих заходів передусім залежить від відповідального ставлення землекористувачів і землевласників, тому що заради отримання надприбутків сільськогосподарські угіддя використовуються екстенсивно, що призводить до їхньої деградації[16,17].…”
unclassified