Open Access
Table 4.
Influence of cultivation technologies on spring wheat yield (2018-2020).
| Variants | Yield, t/ha | Increase, t/ha | |
|---|---|---|---|
| due to fertilezer | due to tillage method | ||
| 1. Extensive technology: unfertilized, plowing | 3.14 | ‐ | |
| 2. Intensive technology: 100 % min.,N60P60K60. plowing | 4.27 | +1.13 | |
| 3. Resource‐saving technology 1:50% org. 50% min. sugar beet tops + Humistim+ N30P30K30. plowing | 4.26 | +1.12 | ‐ |
| 4. Resource‐saving technology 2: 50% org. 50% min., sugar beet tops + Humistim+N30P30K30,subsurface tillage | 4.08 | +0.94 | ‐0.18 |
| 5. Resource‐savingtechnology 3: 50% org. 50% min. sugar beet tops + Humistim+ N30P30K30, surface tillage | 3.87 | +0.73 | ‐0.39 |
| LSD05 by factor A | 0.22 | ||
| LSD05 by factor B | 0.12 | ||
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.