What changed what, as the paper reports it. Grouped by the measured property. The largest groups are open; open the others as you need them.
soil organic matter
↑ 33
↑increase
cover crops (crimson clover, alfalfa, hairy vetch, sweet clover, Egyptian clover) vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · All five cover species, within each ZT/CT/DT. Actual Table2 letters override contradictory prose about hairy/sweet clover. Depth unstated.
zero tillage (ZT) vs. conventional tillage (CT)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within each cover species/control; depth unstated.
Numbers
treatment 0.51 vs. control 0.47 % (+8.511 %) · 2017–18 · no cover
treatment 0.55 vs. control 0.5 % (+10 %) · 2018–19 · no cover
treatment 0.63 vs. control 0.56 % (+12.5 %) · 2017–18 · crimson
treatment 0.69 vs. control 0.61 % (+13.11 %) · 2018–19 · crimson
treatment 0.59 vs. control 0.54 % (+9.259 %) · 2017–18 · alfalfa
treatment 0.66 vs. control 0.58 % (+13.79 %) · 2018–19 · alfalfa
treatment 0.55 vs. control 0.5 % (+10 %) · 2017–18 · hairy vetch
treatment 0.6 vs. control 0.54 % (+11.11 %) · 2018–19 · hairy vetch
treatment 0.57 vs. control 0.52 % (+9.615 %) · 2017–18 · sweet
treatment 0.63 vs. control 0.57 % (+10.53 %) · 2018–19 · sweet
treatment 0.71 vs. control 0.61 % (+16.39 %) · 2017–18 · Egyptian
treatment 0.74 vs. control 0.66 % (+12.12 %) · 2018–19 · Egyptian
Source · p. 4
“Zero-till was better method than conventional and deep tillage method to increase the SOM in wheat for both years (Table 2).”
zero tillage (ZT) vs. deep tillage (DT)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within each cover species/control; depth unstated.
Numbers
treatment 0.51 vs. control 0.41 % (+24.39 %) · 2017–18 · no cover
treatment 0.55 vs. control 0.44 % (+25 %) · 2018–19 · no cover
treatment 0.63 vs. control 0.52 % (+21.15 %) · 2017–18 · crimson
treatment 0.69 vs. control 0.57 % (+21.05 %) · 2018–19 · crimson
treatment 0.59 vs. control 0.5 % (+18 %) · 2017–18 · alfalfa
treatment 0.66 vs. control 0.54 % (+22.22 %) · 2018–19 · alfalfa
treatment 0.55 vs. control 0.47 % (+17.02 %) · 2017–18 · hairy vetch
treatment 0.6 vs. control 0.52 % (+15.38 %) · 2018–19 · hairy vetch
treatment 0.57 vs. control 0.47 % (+21.28 %) · 2017–18 · sweet
treatment 0.63 vs. control 0.53 % (+18.87 %) · 2018–19 · sweet
treatment 0.71 vs. control 0.53 % (+33.96 %) · 2017–18 · Egyptian
treatment 0.74 vs. control 0.58 % (+27.59 %) · 2018–19 · Egyptian
Source · p. 4
“Zero-till was better method than conventional and deep tillage method to increase the SOM in wheat for both years (Table 2).”
cover crops (crimson clover, alfalfa, hairy vetch, sweet clover, Egyptian clover) vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · All five cover crops; within each of ZT, CT and DT; soil measurement depth unstated. Group represents agreeing individual Tukey/LSD comparisons.
Numbers
treatment 1.57 vs. control 1.7 Mg m-3 (-7.647 %) · 2017–18 · crimson, ZT
treatment 1.53 vs. control 1.61 Mg m-3 (-4.969 %) · 2017–18 · crimson, CT
treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-4.459 %) · 2017–18 · crimson, DT
treatment 1.52 vs. control 1.65 Mg m-3 (-7.879 %) · 2018–19 · crimson, ZT
treatment 1.48 vs. control 1.54 Mg m-3 (-3.896 %) · 2018–19 · crimson, CT
treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.53 Mg m-3 (-4.575 %) · 2018–19 · crimson, DT
treatment 1.52 vs. control 1.7 Mg m-3 (-10.59 %) · 2017–18 · alfalfa, ZT
treatment 1.49 vs. control 1.61 Mg m-3 (-7.453 %) · 2017–18 · alfalfa, CT
treatment 1.45 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-7.643 %) · 2017–18 · alfalfa, DT
treatment 1.45 vs. control 1.65 Mg m-3 (-12.12 %) · 2018–19 · alfalfa, ZT
treatment 1.43 vs. control 1.54 Mg m-3 (-7.143 %) · 2018–19 · alfalfa, CT
treatment 1.39 vs. control 1.53 Mg m-3 (-9.15 %) · 2018–19 · alfalfa, DT
treatment 1.61 vs. control 1.7 Mg m-3 (-5.294 %) · 2017–18 · hairy vetch, ZT
treatment 1.54 vs. control 1.61 Mg m-3 (-4.348 %) · 2017–18 · hairy vetch, CT
treatment 1.53 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-2.548 %) · 2017–18 · hairy vetch, DT
treatment 1.57 vs. control 1.65 Mg m-3 (-4.848 %) · 2018–19 · hairy vetch, ZT
treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.54 Mg m-3 (-5.195 %) · 2018–19 · hairy vetch, CT
treatment 1.47 vs. control 1.53 Mg m-3 (-3.922 %) · 2018–19 · hairy vetch, DT
treatment 1.56 vs. control 1.7 Mg m-3 (-8.235 %) · 2017–18 · sweet clover, ZT
treatment 1.55 vs. control 1.61 Mg m-3 (-3.727 %) · 2017–18 · sweet clover, CT
treatment 1.51 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-3.822 %) · 2017–18 · sweet clover, DT
treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.65 Mg m-3 (-9.091 %) · 2018–19 · sweet clover, ZT
treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.54 Mg m-3 (-2.597 %) · 2018–19 · sweet clover, CT
treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.53 Mg m-3 (-4.575 %) · 2018–19 · sweet clover, DT
treatment 1.48 vs. control 1.7 Mg m-3 (-12.94 %) · 2017–18 · Egyptian clover, ZT
treatment 1.44 vs. control 1.61 Mg m-3 (-10.56 %) · 2017–18 · Egyptian clover, CT
treatment 1.42 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-9.554 %) · 2017–18 · Egyptian clover, DT
treatment 1.4 vs. control 1.65 Mg m-3 (-15.15 %) · 2018–19 · Egyptian clover, ZT
treatment 1.39 vs. control 1.54 Mg m-3 (-9.74 %) · 2018–19 · Egyptian clover, CT
treatment 1.38 vs. control 1.53 Mg m-3 (-9.804 %) · 2018–19 · Egyptian clover, DT
Source · p. 4
“All the cover crops improved the above soil properties than the control.”
deep tillage (DT) vs. zero tillage (ZT)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within control/crimson/alfalfa/hairy vetch/sweet clover both years, Egyptian clover 2017–18 only. Egyptian 2018–19 omitted: difference .02 below LSD .023 despite disjoint letters. Depth unstated.
Numbers
treatment 1.57 vs. control 1.7 Mg m-3 (-7.647 %) · 2017–18 · no cover
treatment 1.53 vs. control 1.65 Mg m-3 (-7.273 %) · 2018–19 · no cover
treatment 1.5 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-4.459 %) · 2017–18 · crimson
treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.52 Mg m-3 (-3.947 %) · 2018–19 · crimson
treatment 1.45 vs. control 1.52 Mg m-3 (-4.605 %) · 2017–18 · alfalfa
treatment 1.39 vs. control 1.45 Mg m-3 (-4.138 %) · 2018–19 · alfalfa
treatment 1.53 vs. control 1.61 Mg m-3 (-4.969 %) · 2017–18 · hairy vetch
treatment 1.47 vs. control 1.57 Mg m-3 (-6.369 %) · 2018–19 · hairy vetch
treatment 1.51 vs. control 1.56 Mg m-3 (-3.205 %) · 2017–18 · sweet
treatment 1.46 vs. control 1.5 Mg m-3 (-2.667 %) · 2018–19 · sweet
treatment 1.42 vs. control 1.48 Mg m-3 (-4.054 %) · 2017–18 · Egyptian
Source · p. 4
net assimilation rate
↑ 22
↑increase
Egyptian clover vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 60 DAS, 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Egyptian clover vs no cover within all three tillage systems.
Numbers
treatment 2.99 vs. control 2.59 g m-2 day-1 (+15.44 %) · 2017–18 · ZT
treatment 3.22 vs. control 2.75 g m-2 day-1 (+17.09 %) · 2017–18 · CT
treatment 2.77 vs. control 2.48 g m-2 day-1 (+11.69 %) · 2017–18 · DT
treatment 3.01 vs. control 2.61 g m-2 day-1 (+15.33 %) · 2018–19 · ZT
treatment 3.25 vs. control 2.78 g m-2 day-1 (+16.91 %) · 2018–19 · CT
treatment 2.8 vs. control 2.48 g m-2 day-1 (+12.9 %) · 2018–19 · DT
Source · p. 4
“All the cover crops performed better than control in both the years”
conventional tillage (CT) vs. zero and deep tillage (agreeing reference variants)significant · 60 DAS; 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Conventional tillage versus ZT and versus DT, separate agreeing pairwise comparisons, within control and each of crimson clover, alfalfa, hairy vetch, sweet clover and Egyptian clover. No pooled contrast or computed mean. NAR retained as the paper's measurement; existing CGR catalogue link is flagged in termNotes for review.
Numbers
treatment 2.75 vs. control 2.59 g m-2 day-1 (+6.178 %) · 2017-2018 · No cover crop; CT versus ZT
treatment 2.75 vs. control 2.48 g m-2 day-1 (+10.89 %) · 2017-2018 · No cover crop; CT versus DT
treatment 2.78 vs. control 2.61 g m-2 day-1 (+6.513 %) · 2018-2019 · No cover crop; CT versus ZT
treatment 2.78 vs. control 2.48 g m-2 day-1 (+12.1 %) · 2018-2019 · No cover crop; CT versus DT
treatment 2.8 vs. control 2.65 g m-2 day-1 (+5.66 %) · 2017-2018 · Crimson clover; CT versus ZT
treatment 2.8 vs. control 2.54 g m-2 day-1 (+10.24 %) · 2017-2018 · Crimson clover; CT versus DT
treatment 2.82 vs. control 2.66 g m-2 day-1 (+6.015 %) · 2018-2019 · Crimson clover; CT versus ZT
treatment 2.82 vs. control 2.56 g m-2 day-1 (+10.16 %) · 2018-2019 · Crimson clover; CT versus DT
treatment 3.03 vs. control 2.86 g m-2 day-1 (+5.944 %) · 2017-2018 · Alfalfa; CT versus ZT
treatment 3.03 vs. control 2.73 g m-2 day-1 (+10.99 %)
wheat grain yield
↑ 22
↑increase
Egyptian clover vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 harvests · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within each ZT, CT and DT.
Numbers
treatment 5,009 vs. control 4,080 kg ha-1 (+22.76 %) · 2017–18 · ZT
treatment 5,220 vs. control 4,248 kg ha-1 (+22.87 %) · 2017–18 · CT
treatment 4,706 vs. control 3,969 kg ha-1 (+18.59 %) · 2017–18 · DT
treatment 5,138 vs. control 4,209 kg ha-1 (+22.07 %) · 2018–19 · ZT
treatment 5,348 vs. control 4,377 kg ha-1 (+22.2 %) · 2018–19 · CT
treatment 4,835 vs. control 4,097 kg ha-1 (+18.01 %) · 2018–19 · DT
Source · p. 7
“Conventional tillage along with Egyptian clover as cover crop help to improve the organic matter, moisture level and to reduce the crust pan which ultimately help wheat crop to grow well leading to its higher productivity and net returns.”
conventional tillage (CT) vs. zero and deep tillage (agreeing reference variants)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 harvests · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Egyptian clover; CT versus ZT and CT versus DT, individually agreeing pairwise tests; reference group is not a pooled contrast.
Numbers
treatment 5,220 vs. control 5,009 kg ha-1 (+4.206 %) · 2017–18 · CT vs ZT
treatment 5,220 vs. control 4,706 kg ha-1 (+10.92 %) · 2017–18 · CT vs DT
treatment 5,348 vs. control 5,138 kg ha-1 (+4.103 %) · 2018–19 · CT vs ZT
treatment 5,348 vs. control 4,835 kg ha-1 (+10.63 %) · 2018–19 · CT vs DT
Source · p. 5
“The conventional tillage was better to improve the yield and related parameters using Egyptian clover as cover crop in both years”
Egyptian clover vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 60 DAS, 2017–18 and 2018–19 · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Egyptian clover vs no cover within all three tillage systems.
Numbers
treatment 125.8 vs. control 121.3 days (+3.71 %) · 2017–18 · ZT
treatment 126.5 vs. control 120.6 days (+4.892 %) · 2017–18 · CT
treatment 125.3 vs. control 120.8 days (+3.725 %) · 2017–18 · DT
treatment 127.9 vs. control 123.9 days (+3.228 %) · 2018–19 · ZT
treatment 129.3 vs. control 123.4 days (+4.781 %) · 2018–19 · CT
treatment 127 vs. control 123.6 days (+2.751 %) · 2018–19 · DT
Source · p. 4
“Leaf area duration (LAD) increased significantly in both years and the highest LAD was noted in conventional tillage with Egyptian clover as a cover crop during both years”
Egyptian clover vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 harvests · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within each ZT, CT and DT.
Numbers
treatment 581.6 vs. control 568 m-2 (+2.394 %) · 2017–18 · ZT
treatment 586.6 vs. control 571.3 m-2 (+2.678 %) · 2017–18 · CT
treatment 573.6 vs. control 555.3 m-2 (+3.296 %) · 2017–18 · DT
treatment 583.7 vs. control 569.6 m-2 (+2.475 %) · 2018–19 · ZT
treatment 588.7 vs. control 572.6 m-2 (+2.812 %) · 2018–19 · CT
treatment 575.7 vs. control 556.4 m-2 (+3.469 %) · 2018–19 · DT
Egyptian clover vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 harvests · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within each ZT, CT and DT.
Numbers
treatment 57.3 vs. control 43.6 grains per spike (+31.42 %) · 2017–18 · ZT
treatment 62.3 vs. control 47 grains per spike (+32.55 %) · 2017–18 · CT
treatment 49.3 vs. control 31 grains per spike (+59.03 %) · 2017–18 · DT
treatment 57.5 vs. control 44.3 grains per spike (+29.8 %) · 2018–19 · ZT
treatment 64 vs. control 48 grains per spike (+33.33 %) · 2018–19 · CT
treatment 50.3 vs. control 32.6 grains per spike (+54.29 %) · 2018–19 · DT
Source · p. 6
“Control 43.6k 47.0h-j 31.0n 44.3j 48.0g-i 32.6l”
Source · p. 6
“62.3a 49.3e-g 57.5b 64.0a 50.3d-f”
Source · p. 6
“| Egyptian clover | | 57.3b | | |”
1000-grain weight
↑ 11
↑increase
Egyptian clover vs. control (no cover crop)significant · 2017–18 and 2018–19 harvests · Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala · Within each ZT, CT and DT.
Numbers
treatment 50.1 vs. control 40.7 g (+23.1 %) · 2017–18 · ZT
treatment 52.3 vs. control 42.4 g (+23.35 %) · 2017–18 · CT
treatment 47.1 vs. control 39.6 g (+18.94 %) · 2017–18 · DT
treatment 50.7 vs. control 41.5 g (+22.17 %) · 2018–19 · ZT
treatment 53.2 vs. control 43 g (+23.72 %) · 2018–19 · CT
treatment 47.8 vs. control 40 g (+19.5 %) · 2018–19 · DT
“Tillage reduced the soil bulk density compared with zero tillage. In this regard, the most reduction in bulk density was noted in the deep tillage during the both years.”
