Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention in zero-till DSR reduced weed pressure versus continuous DSR.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- Residue retention in zero-till (ZT) DSRe0
- Outcome
- weed pressuree0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- continuous DSRe0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention in zero-till (ZT) DSR and rotating conventional till (CT) DSR with PTR reduced weed pressure compared to continuous DSR”
t0“rice”
Title
Dharam Bir Yadav; Ashok Yadav; Anil Kumar Vats; et al. SN Applied Sciences 2021. doi:10.1007/s42452-021-04827-7
Other claims from this paper (15)
- Observation Weed infestation was greater and more diverse in direct seeded rice than transplanted rice.
- Intervention effect Eliminating puddling in rice increased Phalaris minor infestation in succeeding wheat.
- Intervention effect Rotating CT DSR with PTR reduced weed pressure versus continuous DSR.
- Observation Root knot and plant parasitic nematodes were fewer in DSR than PTR.
- Observation Saprozoic nematodes showed the reverse pattern in DSR and ZT situations.
- Observation CTDSR grain yield was at par with PTR.
- Observation ZTDSR grain yield was at par with PTR.
- Observation Machine-transplanted rice grain yield was at par with PTR.
- Observation Zero-till wheat after CT/ZT rice yielded 0.3–0.6 t ha −1 more than after puddled rice.
- Observation DSR/MTR systems had higher net returns than PTR.
- Observation DSR/MTR systems saved 22–31% labor.
- Observation DSR irrigation water productivity exceeded PTR.
- Observation DSR reduced irrigation input by 17.5–22.8%.
- Observation ZTDSR/MTR increased soil OC, N, P and K relative to PTR.
- Observation ZTDSR/MTR lowered soil bulk density relative to PTR.