Cited by 97Agricultural Science and FertilizationOrganic Food and AgriculturePlant Growth and Agriculture Techniques

The effect of organic and conventional management on the yield and quality of wheat grown in a long-term field trial

Open access
Bilsborrow, Paul, Cooper, Julia, Tétard-Jones, Catherine, Średnicka-Tober, Dominika, Barański, Marcin, Eyre, Mick, Schmidt, Christoph, Shotton, Peter +5 more·2013·European Journal of Agronomy

Abstract

The performance of winter wheat was evaluated under organic (ORG) and conventional (CON) management systems in the Nafferton Factorial Systems Comparison (NFSC) long-term field trial. The present study separates out the crop protection and fertility management components of organic and conventional production systems using two levels each of crop protection (CP) and fertility management (FM). The experimental design provided the four combinations of crop protection and fertility (CON-CP CON-FM, CON-CP ORG-FM, ORG-CP CON-FM and ORG-CP ORG-FM) to evaluate their effects on yield, quality (protein content and hectolitre weight) and disease levels during the period 2004–2008. The conventional management system (CON-CP CON-FM) out-yielded the organic management system (ORG-CP ORG-FM) in all years by an average of 3.1tha−1, i.e. 7.9tha−1 vs. 4.8tha−1. Fertility management was the key factor identified limiting both yield and grain protein content in the ORG management system. The CON-FM produced on average a 3% higher protein content than ORG-FM in all years (12.5% vs. 9.7%). However the ORG-CP system produced higher protein levels than CON-CP although it was only in 2008 that this was statistically significant. In contrast to protein content it was ORG-FM which produced a higher hectolitre weight than the CON-FM system (71.6kghl−1 vs. 71.0kghl−1). The clear and significant differences in yield and protein content between the ORG-FM and CON-FM systems suggest a limited supply of available N in the organic fertility management system which is also supported by the significant interaction effect of the preceding crop on protein content. The pRDA showed that although fertilisation had the greatest effect on yield, quality and disease there was also a considerable effect of crop protection and the environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eja.2013.06.003

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Crawley, M.J., 2007. The R Book. John Wiley and Son, Chichester, UK. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1161-0301(1300085-3/sbref0060)
  2. Heap, I.M., 1997. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pest Management Science 51 (3), 235-243.
  3. Ishikawa, S., Hare, M.C., Kettkewell, P.S., 2012. Effects of strobilurin fungicide programmesandfertilisernitrogenratesonwinterwheat:severityof Septoria tritici , leaf senesence and yield. Journal of Agriculture Science 150, 411-426.
  4. Pang, X.P., Lettey, J., 2000. Challenges of timing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64, 247-253.
  5. Soil Association, 2010. Organic Standards for Producers. Soil Association, Bristol, UK. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1161-0301(1300085-3/sbref0240)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bilsborrow, P., Cooper, J., Tétard-Jones, C., Średnicka-Tober, D., Barański, M., Eyre, M., Schmidt, C., Shotton, P., Volakakis, N., Cakmak, I., Ozturk, L., Leifert, C., & Wilcockson, S.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Science and Technology Park of Crete (GR)
Corresponding author
Bilsborrow, Paul
Venue
European Journal of Agronomy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
51
Pages
71-80
ISSN
1161-0301 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167286857
Cited by
97
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5
FWCI
6.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Agronomy (publishedVersion)
  • Sabanci University (acceptedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Plant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
Keywords
winter wheat, organic farming, conventional farming, crop protection, fertility management, grain yield, grain protein content, test weight, grain quality, crop diseases, nitrogen availability, preceding crop effects, long-term field experiment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review