Superior Wheat Yield and Profitability in Conservation Agriculture with Diversified Rotations vs. Conventional Tillage in Cold Arid Climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheat productivity in dry regions of the world such as Central Asia and the Mediterranean is experiencing significant declines due to erratic weather events. Conservation agriculture (CA) has been promoted as a promising alternative for drylands to address climate-change-induced water scarcity and soil degradation. A long-term experiment in the Central Anatolian region of Türkiye compared CA and conventional tillage (CT) using diversified two- and four-year rotations. All rotations outperformed the wheat–wheat control, with the highest yields in wheat–fallow and wheat–lentil rotations. Four-year rotations generally yielded more than two-year ones under both CA and CT, except wheat–fallow and wheat–lentil, which matched four-year results. In two-year-rotations, yield differences between CA and CT were largest in wheat–wheat and wheat–lentil, with CA increasing yields by around 50% and 60% for chickpea and lentil, respectively. Chickpea and lentil also had a similar positive effect on wheat yield in four-year rotations. All rotations were more profitable under CA than CT, with chickpea and lentil rotations achieving the highest gross margin. Soil organic matter content was significantly greater under CA compared to CT within each two-year crop rotation. Our study clearly demonstrated the advantages of CA over CT in terms of production, soil quality and economics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".