Next Article in Journal
Numerical Analysis of Influence Mechanism of Orifice Eccentricity on Silo Discharge Rate
Previous Article in Journal
Farmers’ Typologies for the Construction of a Technological and Socioeconomic Baseline of Industrial Cassava Organizations to Guide Research, Production, and Policy Design in Colombian Caribbean Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/agriculture15050489
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Response of Winter Wheat to 35-Year Cereal Monoculture

by
Andrzej Woźniak
and
Małgorzata Haliniarz
*
Department of Herbology and Plant Cultivation Techniques, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(5), 489; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050489
Submission received: 29 January 2025 / Revised: 19 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 25 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Crop Rotation and Continuous Cropping on Soil Health and Crop Yields)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A field experiment aimed to evaluate grain yield and grain quality of winter wheat cultivated in a 35-year cereal monoculture and three soil tillage systems (TSs). Winter wheat grown in the plot after common pea (PS) served as the control. In the monoculture (MON) and on PS plots, winter wheat was sown in the conventional (CT), reduced (RT), and no-tillage (NT) systems. In the CT system, shallow plowing was applied after the previous crop harvest, followed by pre-sow plowing. In the RT system, a cultivator was used, and the pre-sow plowing was replaced with a pre-sowing set. In turn, in the NT system, the soil was treated with glyphosate and cultivated using a pre-sowing cultivation set. Winter wheat produced over 2-fold higher grain yield on the PS plot than in the MON as well as in the CT than in the RT and NT systems. In turn, the plant number after emergence was differentiated only by the cropping system (CS). On the PS plots, the number of plants after emergence was 15.6% higher, and the spike number was 50.5% higher than on the MON plots. Also, more spikes per m2 were found on the CT than on the RT and NT plots. Similarly, the grain weight per spike and the 1000 grain weight were higher on the PS plots compared to the MON plots as well as in the CT than in the RT and NT systems. The evaluation of the variance analysis components shows that the grain yield, plant number after emergence, spike number, grain number per spike, and 1000 grain weight were more strongly influenced by CS than by TS. Grain quality, expressed by the contents of total protein, wet gluten, and starch, as well as by Zeleny’s sedimentation index and grain uniformity index, were affected to a greater extent by CS than TS and reached higher values in the grain harvested from the PS plot compared to MON.

1. Introduction

A typical trait of modern agriculture is crop rotation, with a large predominance of cereals in the crop structure and reduced tillage [1]. According to Aula et al. [2] as well as Kertész and Madarász [3], in the long term, this system can reduce soil fertility and, consequently, diminish crop productivity. A study conducted showed that the frequent cultivation of wheat after itself, and particularly in the monoculture, leads to the development of crop rotation-induced diseases [4] and compensation of troublesome weed species [5]. As a result, weed development contributes to grain yield decrease and grain quality deterioration, reflected particularly in decreased wet gluten content, grain weight by volume, grain sedimentation index, and grain uniformity index, as well as a high ash content [5]. These negative changes may be counteracted by applying crop rotation, including legumes, manured root crops, and fodder crops [6,7].
Crop succession systems and soil tillage systems determine the composition of weed communities in agricultural crops [8,9]. As reported by Davis et al. [10] and Peigné et al. [11], poorly diversified crop rotations and no-tillage cultivation contribute to increased weed infestation and diminished plant productivity [12]. In the no-till system, weed seeds accumulate on the field surface, and their seedlings emerge on the stubble field and thus become the major cause of infestation of arable fields [13,14].
Soil tillage aims to provide conditions suitable for plant growth and yielding. However, the choice of an appropriate tillage system depends on soil quality and usability, water availability, and the organic matter content of the soil. According to Peigné et al. [11], Morris et al. [15], Kertész, and Madarász [3], the no-till system with mulch proves well on light soils. This system is recommended for dry soils, where water retention in the soil may ensure profitable yields [16,17,18,19,20]. In turn, on moderately moist soils, better conditions for plant growth and yielding may be ensured by the conventional tillage system [21,22,23]. According to Morris et al. [15], plant yielding is determined by multiple overlapping hardly predictable agrotechnical and environmental factors. In turn, Gruber et al. [24] have claimed that there is no universal tillage system and that each system applied should be tailored to conditions at a given farm.
The tillage system type also affects wheat grain quality and chemical composition. Woźniak and Makarski [25] demonstrated that the no-till system increased the ash content of wheat grain, particularly including the contents of zinc and copper, whereas the conventional tillage system contributed to higher contents of potassium, magnesium, and manganese. In turn, as reported by Gomez-Becerra et al. [26], the quality of wheat grain and its mineral composition are affected to a greater extent by environmental factors than by tillage systems. The agroclimatic conditions exerted a stronger influence on the grain weight per volume, the protein content of the endosperm, wet gluten content, and ash content compared to the tillage system also in the study by Woźniak and Rachoń [27].
The advanced research hypothesis assumed that higher winter wheat grain yields would be obtained on the post-pea plots than in the cereal monoculture as well as in the conventional tillage system compared to the reduced and no-tillage systems. Thus, this study aimed to assess the yield and quality of winter wheat grain in a 35-year monoculture as well as in conventional (CT), reduced (RT), and no-tillage (NT) systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location and Experimental Design

A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the yield and grain quality of winter wheat cultivated in a 35-year cereal monoculture and three tillage systems (TSs). Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), cv. ‘RGT Bilanz’ grown on the plot after a common pea (Pisum sativum L.) (PS), cv. ‘Batuta’ served as the control. The plants were grown in a four-field crop rotation: potato—winter durum wheat—pea—winter wheat. The experiment was established in 1988 at the Uhrusk Experimental Farm belonging to the University of Life Sciences in Lublin (southeastern Poland, 51°18′ N, 23°36′ E). The results presented in this manuscript were collected in 2023. A two-factor experiment was established in a system of equivalent subblocks (25 m × 6 m) in three replications. In the monoculture (MON) and post-pea plots (PSs), winter wheat was sown in the conventional (CT), reduced (RT), and no-tillage (NT) systems. In the CT system, shallow plowing was applied after the previous crop harvest, followed by pre-sow plowing. In the RT system, a cultivator was used, and the pre-sow plowing was replaced with a pre-sowing set. In turn, in the NT system, the soil was treated with glyphosate and cultivated with a pre-sowing cultivation set, consisting of a cultivator, a string roller, and a harrow (Table 1).
Winter wheat was sown in the last week of September at the sowing density of 380 seeds per m2. Before winter wheat sowing, the soil was fertilized with 150 kg N ha−1, 30 kg P ha−1, and 85 kg K ha−1. The phosphorus (triple superphosphate—40% P2O5) and potassium (potassium salt—60% K2O) fertilizers were applied prior to wheat sowing. Nitrogen fertilizers, in the form of ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4—20.8% N, 24.2% S), were administered in the autumn prior to winter wheat sowing—20 kg N ha−1, and in the springtime: at the tillering stage—70 kg N ha−1, at the shooting stage—40 kg N ha−1, and at the ear formation stage—20 kg N ha−1. Wheat was protected against fungal diseases by means of fungicides containing flusilazole + carbendazime and propiconazole + fenpropidinat. Weed control was ensured by herbicides containing MCPA + mecoprop + dicamba and fenoxaprop-P-ethyl as active substances.

2.2. Soil and Weather Conditions

According to the World Reference Base for Soil Resources [28], the soil the experiment was established on was classified as Rendzic Phaeozem. Its mineral fraction distribution and chemical properties are provided in Table 2. The thickness of the soil profile ranged from 30 to 50 cm, alike the humus horizon. The total precipitation recorded since the sowing of winter wheat (September) until its harvest (August) reached 686 mm, with 285 mm of rainfall recorded during spring and summer (from April until August). The average air temperature in this period was 14.5 °C (Table 3).

2.3. Production Traits and Statistical Analysis

The following parameters of winter wheat were analyzed in the study: grain yield calculated at 13% moisture, number of plants after emergence per m2, spike number per m2, grain weight per spike, 1000 grain weight, total protein content, wet gluten content, Zeleny’s sedimentation index, starch content, grain weight per volume, and grain uniformity.
Grain was harvested with a plot harvester in the first week of August. The number of plants after emergence and the number of spikes was calculated on the area of one m2 of each plot, and the grain weight per spike was determined from 30 spikes randomly collected from each plot. The 1000-grain weight was determined by counting and weighing 2 × 500 grains. Total protein content, wet gluten content, Zeleny’s sedimentation index, and starch content were determined by means of Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRSS) on the OmegAnalyzer Grain instrument (Bruins Instruments, Puchheim, Germany). The grain weight by volume was measured using a 1-L densitometer, whereas grain uniformity was determined using a sorter with a mesh size of 2.5 mm × 25 mm.
The experimental results were statistically processed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) method. The significance of differences between mean values determined for CS and TS as well as for CS × TS was verified with Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Grain Yield and Its Components

The grain yield of winter wheat was affected by both CS and TS and interactions thereof (CS × TS) (Table 4). Winter wheat produced over 2-fold higher grain yield on the PS plots than in the MON as well as in the CT than in the RT and NT systems (by 15.9% and 30.4%, respectively). The number of plants after emergence per m2 was differentiated only by CS (Table 5) and was 15.6% higher on PS plots than in the MON.
The spike number per m2 was also higher on PS plots than in MON (by 50.5%), and its value was also differentiated by the TS and by the CS × TS interaction. Also, more spikes per m2 were found on CT than on the RT and NT plots (by 11.8% and 20.7%, respectively). Wheat grown on PS plots also produced 70.6% higher grain weight per spike compared to wheat from MON. In addition, a higher grain weight was obtained from spikes harvested from the CT than from the RT and NT plots (by 11% and 17.9%, respectively). Likewise, a higher 1000 grain weight was produced by wheat grown on PS plots compared to that from MON (by 14.9%) as well as by wheat cultivated in the CT system compared to the RT and NT systems (by 4.2% and 7.2%, respectively).
The evaluation of the variance analysis components shows that the grain yield, plant number after emergence, spike number per m2, grain number per spike, and 1000 grain weight were more strongly influenced by CS than by TS (Table 6).

3.2. Grain Quality Attributes

The total protein content of wheat grain depended only on CS and was higher in the grain harvested from PS plots compared to that from MON (Table 7). Likewise, the wet gluten content was higher in wheat grain from PS plots than in that from MON and also in the grain from the NT system compared to the CT and RT systems.
The value of the and Zeleny’s sedimentation index was also higher in the grain from PS than MON plots and was found to depend on the TS and CS × TS interaction. In the case of all plots, its higher value was determined in the grain harvested from the CT than from the RT and NT systems. The starch content of the grain depended only on CS and was higher in the grain harvested from PS plots compared to the grain from MON. In turn, the grain weight by volume depended on the CS, TS, and CS × TS interaction. Its higher value was determined in the grain from PS than from MON plots, and also in the grain from the CT than RT and NT systems. In addition, a higher grain weight by volume was produced on PS × CT plots, compared to the other plots. Also, greater uniformity was noted in the case of the grain harvested from PS than MON plots as well as in the grain from wheat cultivated in CT and NT systems compared to the RT system.
The evaluation of the variance analysis components allows us to conclude that the total protein content, wet gluten content, Zeleny’s sedimentation index, starch content of the grain, and grain uniformity were affected to a greater extent by CS than by TS (Table 8). Only the grain weight by volume was similarly affected by crop succession and tillage systems.

4. Discussion

Crop succession and tillage systems exert a significant effect on crop productivity [29]. Also, Jalli et al. [4] reported that crop rotation and soil tillage were the key factors affecting crop yielding, agrophage elimination, and soil quality, whereas Jug et al. [30] were of the opinion that soil tillage is one of the most essential soil management practices, exerting a strong impact on weed infestation and productivity of crops. In the present study, the productivity of winter wheat was affected to a greater extent by crop succession than by soil tillage systems. On the plot after pea, wheat produced over two-fold higher grain yield than in the cereal monoculture, whereas grain yield obtained in the conventional tillage was higher by 15.9% and 30.4% than in the reduced tillage and no-tillage systems, respectively. In the study by Jalli et al. [4], the no-till system increased wheat grain yield in crop rotation and monoculture by 30% and 13%, compared to conventional tillage. Woźniak and Rachoń [27] demonstrated that winter wheat grain yield depended to a greater extent on the course of weather conditions in particular study years than on tillage systems. In turn, Santín-Montanyá et al. [19] drew attention to the interaction between soil tillage systems and atmospheric precipitation and demonstrated that the NT system yielded the greatest benefits in the areas with low total precipitation.
According to Ramanauskienė et al. [31] and Butkevičienė et al. [12], poorly diversified crop rotation increases weed infestation, whereas a high contribution of cereals in the crop rotation increases crop infestation by take-all diseases, consequently leading to grain yield decrease and grain quality deterioration [5,32,33]. As MacLaren et al. [34] stated, diversified crops in the crop rotation increased the diversity of weed species, thereby reducing weed competitiveness against crops. As reported by Hicks et al. [35], the use of herbicides enables quick eradication of weeds from crop stands but their overuse is a key factor leading to weed resistance to the active substances of these preparations. According to Bàrberi [36] and Chauhan et al. [37], crop rotation is a fundamental component of the effective and sustainable strategy for weed control in crop stands.
Investigations conducted by Gomez-Becerra et al. [26], Rachoń et al. [38], Dziki et al. [39], and Woźniak [40] indicate that the conditions facilitating wheat yielding positively affect grain quality. However, as Jug et al. [30] reported, opinions on the impact of reduced tillage systems on wheat grain yield and quality vary, and ultimate production effects are determined by the site and extent of these reductions. Paunescu et al. [41] demonstrated that the wheat grain quality, including, in particular, its protein and gluten contents, was mainly affected by fertilization with nitrogen. In contrast, experiments conducted by Hemmat and Eskandari [42] and Dziki et al. [39] pointed to the previous crops as the factor determining grain quality. Legumes [43] and root crops fertilized with organic fertilizers [44] proved to be the best previous crops for cereals. This finding is consistent with the results from the study by Woźniak [40], where wheat grain harvested after potatoes grown on manure and field peas had a higher protein content and a higher sedimentation index value compared to the grain harvested after winter wheat. Also, a better quality, in terms of gluten content, grain weight by volume, sedimentation index value, and grain uniformity, was reported for the wheat grain harvested from crop rotation and conventional soil tillage than for that from monoculture and no-till systems [45]. The studies conducted showed that no-tillage had a positive effect on the gluten content in grain, while Zeleny’s sedimentation index reached the lowest value in this system. The highest value of grain weight per volume was obtained under conventional cultivation conditions, while grain uniformity was shaped at the same level in conventional and no-tillage cultivation. The tillage system, on the other hand, had no significant effect on the protein content of the grain. Gawęda and Haliniarz [46] also showed no significant effect of tillage on grain protein content. On the other hand, Ali et al. [47] in the NT system obtained a significantly lower protein content in wheat grain by 15% and 12%, respectively, compared to the conventional system (CT) and reduced tillage (RT). A higher protein content in durum wheat grain grown in CT compared to NT was also found by De Vita et al. [17]. However, ample studies have demonstrated that the quality of grain was affected to the greatest extent by interactions of agroclimatic conditions with soil tillage systems and crop rotation [22,26,27,48].

5. Conclusions

The grain yield of winter wheat was affected to a greater extent by crop succession than by tillage systems. Winter wheat produced more than a two-fold higher yield in the plot after pea than in the 35-year cereal monoculture. A significantly higher grain yield was also obtained in the conventional tillage system than in the reduced and no-till systems. The quality of winter wheat grain was also affected to a greater extent by crop succession than by soil tillage systems. Grain of better quality, in terms of protein, gluten, and starch content, as well as a higher grain weight by volume and uniformity index, was obtained from plots after pea than in the monoculture. Also, better-quality grain, given its gluten content, grain weight by volume, and uniformity index, was produced from conventional tillage rather than from reduced and no-till systems. Based on the research conducted, it can be concluded that the recommended cultivation for winter wheat should be in crop rotation and in the conventional tillage system.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.; methodology, A.W. and M.H.; formal analysis, A.W. and M.H.; data curation, A.W.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W.; writing—review and editing, A.W. and M.H.; visualization, A.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland as part of statutory activities of the Department of Herbology and Plant Cultivation Techniques, University of Life Sciences in Lublin.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The dataset is available on request from the authors.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CSCropping system
TSTillage system
nsNot significant
MONMonoculture
CTConventional tillage
RTReduced tillage
NTNo-tillage
PSPea

References

  1. Elouattassi, Y.; Ferioun, M.; El Ghachtouli, N.; Derraz, K.; Rachidi, F. Agroecological concepts and alternatives to the problems of contemporary agriculture: Monoculture and chemical fertilization in the context of climate change. J. Agric. Environ. Int. Dev. 2023, 117, 41–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aula, L.; Easterly, A.C.; Mikha, M.M.; Creech, C.F. Tillage practices affect soil fertility of a long-term winter wheat–fallow rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2024, 88, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kertész, Á.; Madarász, B. Conservation Agriculture in Europe. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2014, 2, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jalli, M.; Huusela, E.; Jalli, H.; Kauppi, K.; Niemi, M.; Himanen, S.; Jauhiainen, L. Effects of Crop Rotation on Spring Wheat Yield and Pest Occurrence in Different Tillage Systems: A Multi-Year Experiment in Finnish Growing Conditions. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 647335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Woźniak, A. Effect of Crop Rotation and Cereal Monoculture on the Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat Grain and on Crop Infestation with Weeds and Soil Properties. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2019, 13, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Melero, S.; López-Garrido, R.; Murillo, M.; Moreno, F. Conservation tillage: Short- and long-term effects on soil carbon fractions and enzymatic activities under Mediterranean conditions. Soil Till. Res. 2009, 104, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Niewiadomska, A.; Majchrzak, L.; Borowiak, K.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Waraczewska, Z.; Budka, A.; Gaj, R. The Influence of Tillage and Cover Cropping on Soil Microbial Parameters and Spring Wheat Physiology. Agronomy 2020, 10, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hernández Plaza, E.; Navarrete, L.; González-Andújar, J.L. Intensity of soil disturbance shapes response trait diversity of weed communities: The long-term effects of different tillage systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 207, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Naeem, M.; Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Farooq, S. Weed flora composition of different barley-based cropping systems under conventional and conservation tillage practices. Phytoparasitica 2021, 49, 751–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Davis, A.S.; Renner, K.A.; Gross, K.L. Weed seedbank community shifts in a long-term cropping experiment. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Peigné, J.; Ball, B.C.; Roger-Estrade, J.; David, C. Is conservation tillage suitable for organic farming? A review. Soil Use Manag. 2007, 23, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Butkevičienė, L.M.; Skinulienė, L.; Auželienė, I.; Bogužas, V.; Pupalienė, R.; Steponavičienė, V. The Influence of Long-Term Different Crop Rotations and Monoculture on Weed Prevalence and Weed Seed Content in the Soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vanasse, A.; Leroux, G.D. Floristic diversity, size and vertical distribution of the weed seedbank in ridge and conventional tillage systems. Weed Sci. 2000, 48, 454–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Feledyn-Szewczyk, B.; Janusz Smagacz, J.; Kwiatkowski, C.K.; Harasim, E.; Woźniak, A. Weed Flora and Soil Seed Bank Composition as Affected by Tillage System in Three-Year Crop Rotation. Agriculture 2020, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Morris, N.L.; Miller, P.C.H.; Orson, J.H.; Froud-Williams, R.J. The adoption of non-inversion tillage systems in the United Kingdom and the agronomic impact on soil, crops and the environment—A review. Soil Till. Res. 2010, 108, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. López-Bellido, L.; Fuentes, M.; Castillo, J.E.; López-Garrido, F.J.; Fernández, E.J. Long-term tillage, crop rotation, and nitrogen fertilizer effects on wheat yield under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. Agron. J. 1996, 88, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Vita, P.; Di Paolo, E.; Fecondo, G.; Di Fonzo, N.; Pisante, M. No-tillage and conventional tillage effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality and soil moisture content in southern Italy. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 92, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Copec, K.; Filipovic, D.; Husnjak, S.; Kovacev, I.; Kosutic, S. Effects of tillage systems on soil water content and yield in maize and winter wheat production. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Santín-Montanyá, M.I.; Fernández-Getino, A.P.; Zambrana, E.; Tenorio, J.L. Effects of tillage on winter wheat production in Mediterranean dryland fields. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2017, 31, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kassar, F.H.; Aridhee, J.K.A.; Abood, A.M.; Szymanek, M.; Lysiak, G.; Dakhil, M.M. Effect of Various Tillage Systems on Some of Soil Physical Properties and Wheat Yield Parameters. Int. J. Agric. Stat. Sci. 2020, 16, 1605–1610. Available online: https://connectjournals.com/03899.2020.16.1605 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
  21. Micucci, F.G.; Taboada, M.A. Soil physical properties and soybean (Glycine max, Merrill) root abundance in conventionally and zero-tilled soil in the humid Pampas of Argentina. Soil Till. Res. 2006, 86, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ruisi, P.; Giambalvo, D.; Saia, S.; Di Miceli, G.; Frenda, A.S.; Plaia, A.; Amato, G. Conservation tillage in a semiarid Mediterranean environment: Results of 20 years of research. Ital. J. Agron. 2014, 9, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ahmadi, H.; Mirseyed Hosseini, H.; Moshiri, F.; Alikhani, H.A.; Etesami, H. Impact of varied tillage practices and phosphorus fertilization regimes on wheat yield and grain quality parameters in a five-year corn-wheat rotation system. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 14717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gruber, S.; Pekrun, C.; Möhring, J.; Claupein, W. Long-term yield and weed response to conservation and stubble tillage in SW Germany. Soil Till. Res. 2012, 121, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Woźniak, A.; Makarski, B. Content of minerals in grain of spring wheat cv. Koksa depending on cultivation conditions. J. Elem. 2012, 17, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gomez-Becerra, H.F.; Erdem, H.; Yazici, A.; Tutus, Y.; Torun, B.; Ozturk, L.; Cakmak, I. Grain concentrations of protein and mineral nutrients in a large collection of spelt wheat grown under different environments. J. Cereal. Sci. 2010, 52, 342–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Woźniak, A.; Rachoń, L. Effect of Tillage Systems on the Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat Grain and Soil Properties. Agriculture 2020, 10, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS): Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  29. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Jabran, K.; Hussain, M. Impact of different crop rotations and tillage systems on weed infestation and productivity of bread wheat. Crop Prot. 2016, 89, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jug, J.; Jug, D.; Sabo, M.; Stipesevic, B.; Stosic, M. Winter wheat yield and yield components as affected by soil tillage systems. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2011, 35, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ramanauskienė, J.; Dabkevičius, Z.; Tamošiūnas, K.; Petraitienė, E. The incidence and severity of take-all in winter wheat and Gaeumannomyces graminis soil inoculum levels in Lithuania. Zemdirbyste 2019, 106, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gutteridge, R.J.; Hornby, D. Effects of sowing data and volunteers on the infectivity of soil infested with Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici and on take-all disease in successive crops of winter wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2003, 143, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Madsen, H.; Luik, A.; Eremeev, V.; Mäeorg, E.; Talgre, L. Changes in weed biomass, density and diversity in long-term crop rotation experiment during second rotation. Agraarteadus 2022, 34, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. MacLaren, C.; Storkey, J.; Menegat, A.; Metcalfe, H.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K. An ecological future for weed science to sustain crop production and the environment. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hicks, H.L.; Comont, D.; Coutts, S.R.; Crook, L.; Hull, R.; Norris, K.; Neve, P.; Childs, D.Z.; Freckleton, R.P. The factors driving evolved herbicide resistance at a national scale. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bàrberi, P. Weed management in organic agriculture: Are we addressing the right issues? Weed Res. 2002, 42, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chauhan, B.S.; Singh, R.G.; Mahajan, G. Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: A review. Crop Prot. 2012, 38, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rachoń, L.; Szumiło, G.; Brodowska, M.; Woźniak, A. Nutritional value and mineral composition of grain of selected wheat species depending on the intensity of a production technology. J. Elem. 2015, 20, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dziki, D.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Gawlik-Dziki, U.; Miś, A.; Różyło, R.; Jończyk, K. Physico-chemical Properties and milling characteristic of spring wheat from different farming systems. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 19, 1253–1266. [Google Scholar]
  40. Woźniak, A. Grain yield, grain quality and weed infestation of winter wheat after various previous crops. Agron. Sci. 2024, 79, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Paunescu, R.A.; Bonciu, E.; Rosculete, E.; Paunescu, G.; Rosculete, C.A. The Effect of Different Cropping Systems on Yield, Quality, Productivity Elements, and Morphological Characters in Wheat (Triticum aestivum). Plants 2023, 12, 2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Hemmat, A.; Eskandari, I. Tillage system effects upon productivity of dryland winter wheat-chickpea rotation in the northwest region of Iran. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 78, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Meena, R.S.; Lal, R. Legumes and Sustainable Use of Soils. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R., Das, A., Yadav, G., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rasool, R.; Kukal, S.S.; Hira, G.S. Soil organic carbon and physical properties as affected by long-term application of FYM and inorganic fertilizers in maize–wheat system. Soil Till. Res. 2008, 101, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Woźniak, A. Effect of agronomic practices on yield, grain quality and root infestation by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici of winter wheat. J. Elem. 2023, 28, 1021–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gawęda, D.; Haliniarz, M. Grain Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat Depending on Previous Crop and Tillage System. Agriculture 2021, 11, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ali, S.A.; Tedone, L.; Verdini, L.; Cazzato, E.; De Mastro, G. Wheat response to no-tillage and nitrogen fertilization in a long-term faba bean-based rotation. Agronomy 2019, 9, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hernanz, J.L.; Sánchez-Girón, V.; Navarrete, L.; Sánchez, M.J. Long-term (1983–2012) assessment of three tillage systems on the energy use efficiency, crop production and seeding emergence in a rain fed cereal monoculture in semiarid conditions in central Spain. Field Crops Res. 2014, 166, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The sequence of performed works for the cultivation of winter wheat in monoculture and after peas, depending on the soil cultivation systems.
Table 1. The sequence of performed works for the cultivation of winter wheat in monoculture and after peas, depending on the soil cultivation systems.
Conventional Tillage (CT)Reduced Tillage (RT)No-Tillage (NT)
  • After previous crop harvest: shallow ploughing and harrowing
  • After previous crop harvest: cultivator
1.
After previous crop harvest: glyphosate at a dose of 4 L ha−1 (360 g L−1)
2.
Prior to sowing: pre-sow ploughing and harrowing
2.
Prior to sowing: pre-sow cultivation set
2.
Prior to sowing: pre-sow cultivation set
Table 2. Physicochemical properties of soil (in the 0.25 m layer of soil).
Table 2. Physicochemical properties of soil (in the 0.25 m layer of soil).
SpecificationValue
Sand 2.0–0.05 mm (%)52
Silt 0.05–0.002 mm (%)25
Clay < 0.002 mm (%)23
Organic C (g kg−1 d.m.)11.4
Total N (g kg−1 d.m.)0.70
P (mg kg−1 d.m.)121
K (mg kg−1 d.m.)210
Mg (mg kg−1 d.m.)70
pHKCL7.2
Table 3. Monthly sums of precipitation and average air temperature from sowing to crop harvest (2022–2023).
Table 3. Monthly sums of precipitation and average air temperature from sowing to crop harvest (2022–2023).
MonthsMonthly Sums of Precipitation (mm)Average Monthly Air Temperature (°C)
September12214.0
October2910.5
November265.5
December211.0
January940.0
February360.5
March423.5
April397.5
May8412.0
June6018.5
July10220.0
August3120.0
Total/Average temperature6869.4
Table 4. Grain yield of winter wheat in t ha−1.
Table 4. Grain yield of winter wheat in t ha−1.
Tillage System (TS)Cropping System (CS)Mean
a PSMON
CT10.54.17.3
RT8.64.06.3
NT7.63.75.6
Mean8.93.9-
HSD0.05 for CS = 0.4; TS = 0.6; CS × TS = 1.0
a PS—Pea (control variant), MON—Monoculture, CT—Conventional tillage, RT—Reduced tillage, NT—No-tillage.
Table 5. Components of winter wheat yield.
Table 5. Components of winter wheat yield.
Tillage System (TS)Cropping System (CS)Mean
a PSMON
Plant number after emergence per m2
CT334.0294.0314.0
RT324.0282.0303.0
NT331.3280.3305.8
Mean329.8285.4-
HSD0.05 for CS = 9.5; TS = ns; CS × TS = ns
Spike number per m2
CT540.7391.7466.2
RT511.0323.0417.0
NT473.7298.7386.2
Mean508.4337.8-
HSD0.05 for CS = 15.7; TS = 23.5; CS × TS = 41.9
Grain weight per spike (g)
CT1.941.071.51
RT1.691.041.36
NT1.600.961.28
Mean1.741.02-
HSD0.05 for CS = 0.11; TS = 0.16; CS × TS = ns
1000 grain weight (g)
CT48.541.144.8
RT45.940.143.0
NT44.239.341.8
Mean46.240.2-
HSD0.05 for CS = 1.1; TS = 1.6; CS × TS = ns
a PS—Pea (control variant), MON—Monoculture, CS—Cropping system, TS—Tillage system, CT—Conventional tillage, RT—Reduced tillage, NT—No-tillage, ns—not significant, p < 0.05.
Table 6. Variance analysis for winter wheat yield and its components.
Table 6. Variance analysis for winter wheat yield and its components.
SpecificationValuea CSTSCS × TS
Grain yield (t ha−1)F854.931.0820.33
p*****
Plant number after emergence per m2F102.52.260.59
p**nsns
Spike number per m2F561.641.852.53
p****ns
Grain weight per spike (g)F218.07.632.34
p****ns
1000 grain weight (g)F142.612.652.19
p****ns
a CS—Cropping system, TS—Tillage system, ns—not significant, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 7. Quality parameters of winter wheat grain.
Table 7. Quality parameters of winter wheat grain.
Tillage System (TS)Cropping System (CS)Mean
a PSMON
Total protein content (%)
CT14.413.413.9
RT14.213.313.8
NT14.413.313.9
Mean14.413.3-
HSD0.05 for CS = 0.3; TS = ns; CS × TS = ns
Wet gluten content (%)
CT31.728.029.9
RT30.928.629.8
NT32.329.130.7
Mean31.628.6-
HSD0.05 for CS = 0.4; TS = 0.6; CS × TS = 1.0
Zeleny’s sedimentation index (mL)
CT50.143.546.8
RT50.339.845.0
NT49.538.844.1
Mean49.940.7-
HSD0.05 for CS = 0.6; TS = 0.9; CS × TS = 1.6
Starch content (%)
CT50.749.750.2
RT51.449.850.6
NT51.350.050.7
Mean51.149.8-
HSD0.05 for CS = 0.7; TS = ns; CS × TS = ns
Grain weight per volume (kg hL−1)
CT76.071.073.5
RT72.169.070.6
NT69.169.369.2
Mean72.469.8-
HSD0.05 for CS = 1.6; TS = 2.5; CS × TS = 4.4
Grain uniformity (%)
CT88.172.080.1
RT80.074.077.0
NT83.177.080.1
Mean83.774.3-
HSD0.05 for CS = 1.5; TS = 2.2; CS × TS = 3.9
a PS—Pea (control variant), MON—Monoculture, CT—Conventional tillage, RT—Reduced tillage, NT—No-tillage, CS—Cropping system, TS—Tillage system, ns—not significant, p < 0.05.
Table 8. Variance analysis for quality parameters of winter wheat grain.
Table 8. Variance analysis for quality parameters of winter wheat grain.
SpecificationValuea CSTSCS × TS
Total protein content (%)F151.60.780.84
p**nsns
Wet gluten content (%)F288.810.305.35
p*****
Zeleny’s sedimentation index (mL)F1198.034.8925.50
p******
Starch content (%)F16.991.020.27
p**nsns
Grain weight per volume (kg hL−1)F12.0011.494.05
p*****
Grain uniformity (%)F168.719.3232.00
p******
a CS—Cropping system, TS—Tillage system, ns—not significant, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Woźniak, A.; Haliniarz, M. Response of Winter Wheat to 35-Year Cereal Monoculture. Agriculture 2025, 15, 489. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050489

AMA Style

Woźniak A, Haliniarz M. Response of Winter Wheat to 35-Year Cereal Monoculture. Agriculture. 2025; 15(5):489. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050489

Chicago/Turabian Style

Woźniak, Andrzej, and Małgorzata Haliniarz. 2025. "Response of Winter Wheat to 35-Year Cereal Monoculture" Agriculture 15, no. 5: 489. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050489

APA Style

Woźniak, A., & Haliniarz, M. (2025). Response of Winter Wheat to 35-Year Cereal Monoculture. Agriculture, 15(5), 489. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050489

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop