It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Suitable tillage and seeding strategies for wheat can be used to combat excessive residues and poor soil conditions in harvested rice fields. This study investigated the effects of different tillage (zero tillage and rotary tillage) and seeding methods on wheat growth, grain yield, nitrogen (N) uptake and utilization, and economic benefit when the soil moisture was high during the tillage and seeding practices. In 2016–2017, three seeders were tested: SM1-1, SM2, and SM3; in 2017–2018, four seeders were tested: SM1-2, SM2, SM3, and SM4. Although the soil moisture was different between years, zero tillage could be used to reduce the sowing depth, which facilitated early-phase wheat growth and N uptake compared with rotary tillage, resulting in higher grain yield, NUpE, and net return. In 2016–2017 (high wet soil), a small-size seeder (SM1-1) with sowing near the soil surface facilitated higher grain yield, NUpE, and net returns compared with the other seeders; in 2017–2018 (low wet soil), medium-size seeders (SM3 and SM4) were more suitable than small-size seeders (SM1-2 and SM2). In both years, the seeders that performed the best mainly improved the spike numbers while increasing N uptake, especially after anthesis. Zero tillage lowered input costs, but small-size seeders did not reduce costs due to the higher labor costs associated with their low working efficiency. Improving net returns depends largely on increasing yield. In conclusion, zero tillage is recommended for wheat production in harvested rice fields with a high soil moisture content, but the suitable seeding method needs to be confirmed according to the soil moisture content.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Agricultural College of Yangzhou University, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology, and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Cultivation and Physiology, Yangzhou, China (GRID:grid.268415.c); Yangzhou University, Co-Innovation Center for Modern Production Technology of Grain Crops, Yangzhou, China (GRID:grid.268415.c)
2 Agricultural College of Yangzhou University, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Physiology, and Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Crop Cultivation and Physiology, Yangzhou, China (GRID:grid.268415.c)