Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Zero tillage in maize with conventional tillage in wheat gave the highest benefit to cost ratio.

A claim from Weed dynamics and productivity under different tillage and weed-management practices in maize (Zea mays)wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping sequence · 2001

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage in maize with conventional tillage in wheat gave the highest benefit to cost ratio.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
zero tillage in maize and conventional tillage in wheate0
Outcome
benefit: cost ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
continuous zero tillage in both the crope0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“adoption of zero tillage in maize and conventional tillage in wheat also proved economically beneficial with the highest benefit: cost ratio and the lowest cost of cultivation in maizewheat system followed by continuous zero tillage in both the crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1216–1465

Title

Weed dynamics and productivity under different tillage and weed-management practices in maize (Zea mays)wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping sequence

LOBZANG STANZEN; ANIL KUMAR; B.C. SHARMA; et al. Indian Journal of Agronomy 2001. doi:10.59797/ija.v61i4.4411

Other claims from this paper (13)

Record rev-0cacff4d0da3c4ecfd3259336548cfaebf7e30ecb9f02a58eb87d0db277d9665 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 10 in the model’s answer

Triticum aestivum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

102 papers: 83 positive, 19 negative or no effect

82 papers in the same direction as this claim · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
  4. negative
    Winter annual forage reduced subsequent corn yield.

    Integrating a Double‐Cropped Winter Annual Forage into a Corn‐Soybean Rotation · 2002 · compared with treatments thatdid not have a double‐crop winter annual forage

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
  6. no effect
  7. negative
  8. negative

93 papers more in this group

See all 102 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this claim · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative
  4. no effect
  5. negative
  6. negative
  7. negative
  8. no effect

1,090 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.