Intervention effectmodel-written summary

RDF plus 1% Pulse Magic foliar spray gave higher harvest index in pigeonpea (0.26) than control.

A claim from Effect of Foliar Nutrition on Growth and Yield of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan. (L.) Mill sp.] · 2024

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RDF plus 1% Pulse Magic foliar spray gave higher harvest index in pigeonpea (0.26) than control.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
Treatment
RDF + foliar application of 1% pulse magic at flowering and pod formation stagee3
Outcome
harvest indexe3
Direction
Highere3
Value
0.26e3
Qualifier
0.23e3
Comparator
control treatmente3
Setting
Karnatakae0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor role

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pigeonpea is most important rainfed pulse crop of Karnataka”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–59
e3

“Higher seed yield (1590 kg ha-1), stalk yield (4308 kg ha-1) and harvest index (0.26) recorded with the application of RDF + foliar application of 1% pulse magic at flowering and pod formation stage and lower seed yield, stalk yield and harvest index (1104 kg ha-1, 3416 kg ha-1 and 0.23, respectively) was recorded with control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1416

Title

Effect of Foliar Nutrition on Growth and Yield of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan. (L.) Mill sp.]

Dayanandanaik S; H. M. Atheek Ur Rehaman; Somashekar, K. S; et al. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2024. doi:10.9734/ajsspn/2024/v10i2270

Other claims from this paper (10)

Record rev-9f47edbea97b74c8a7e23c7e6ae1bf5c6524582683d9cc02732794b95c1e7105 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 11 in the model’s answer

stage · yield · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 19 positive, 3 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this claim · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Flowering drought caused greater dry matter and yield reduction than pre-flowering or pod-filling drought.

    Effect of timing of drought stress on growth and grain yield of extra-short-duration pigeonpea lines · 2001 · compared with stress imposed during the pre-flowering and pod-filling stages

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Seed yield of plants defoliated at the onset of flowering was 30-80% lower than that of plants defoliated at the vegetative stage.

    Growth, development and yield of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) in the lowland tropics:2. Effect of reduced assimilatory capacity · 1982 · compared with plants defoliated at the vegetative stage

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Waterlogging at post flowering gave the lowest seed yield in both pigeonpea varieties (T21 and Bahar) in pot culture, followed by waterlogging at flowering.

    Effect of waterlogging on nitrogen content and seed yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) · 2000 · compared with waterlogging at flowering stage

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Pod removal after one or two weeks of flowering increased vegetative development and dry-matter accumulation versus controls.

    Compensatory growth and yield of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) following pod removal at different stages of reproductive growth · 1980 · compared with the control

    Same direction

  5. positive
    Two applications of 75 ppm GA3 at flowering and pod development stages significantly increased the number of branches per plant and pods per plant compared with no GA3.

    Effect of foliar application of gibbrellic acid on pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.)] under rainfed conditions · 2018 · compared with no application of the GA3

    Same direction

  6. positive
    Foliar RDF with 2% DAP and multimicronutrient at 50% flowering gave higher dry matter accumulation of 143.33 in pigeonpea.

    Study of foliar nutrient management on growth and yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) · 2019

    Same direction

  7. positive
    Nipping the terminal bud at 45-50 days increased the number of primary and secondary branches and pods per plant.

    Influence of nipping technology on growth, yield and economics of pigeonpea cultivated under rainfed situation · 2020

    Same direction

  8. positive
    Nipping plus Pulse magic and NPK sprays produced higher plant growth and dry matter.

    Effect of Irrigation Levels, Nipping and Foliar Spray of Nutrients along with Growth Regulators on Growth Parameter of Transplanted Pigeonpea · 2019

    Same direction

13 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

application · yield · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Positive and negative results

93 papers: 87 positive, 6 negative or no effect

86 papers in the same direction as this claim · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
    total dry matter accumulation was higher under zinc biofortification than other treatments (210.79 g).

    Growth, Yield and Economics of Pigeonpea as Influenced by Biofortification of Zinc and Iron · 2020 · compared with rest of the treatments

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. no effect
    Within individual years, 75% recommended phosphate with PSB soil application gave yield, GMR and NMR at par with the 50 kg P2O5 application.

    Effect of land configuration and phosphate management on growth and yield of semi-rabi pigeonpea · 2013 · compared with 50 kg P 2 O 5 application (100% recommended P 2 O 5 )

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Normal soil application of commercial fertilizers without irrigation gave significantly lower number of pods, seed weight and yield attributes.

    Standardization of fertigation technology for transplanted pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] · 2018

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Spraying a sugar solution did not increase the yield of the A line in net houses.

    Honey bee mediated (Apis mellifera L.) hybrid pigeonpea seed production under net house condition. · 2018

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Growth regulators and foliar fertilizer had no effect on pod set or final pod number.

    Influence of Nutrition and Bioregulators on Flower Retention, Pod Set and Yield on Pigeon Peas (Cajanus Cajan (L.) Huth) · 1981

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Plant height, branches per plant and 100-grain weight of pigeonpea were unaffected by foliar nutrients and insecticides.

    Response of long duration pigeonpea (Cajanus Cajan L .) to foliar application of nutrients and insecticides under rainfed condition of Bihar · 2024

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Foliar fertilization with 2% urea and 2% KCl gave no significant difference in pigeonpea yield.

    Influence of Drought Management Practices on Growth and Yield of Pigeonpea · 2009 · compared with 2% KCl

    No difference from an alternative

  8. positive
    Mixed emamectin benzoate and acetamiprid spray produced the maximum yield increase of 64.22%.

    Management of pigeonpea pod borers with special reference to pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) · 2011

    Same direction

84 papers more in this group

See all 93 papers →

fertilization · yield · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Positive and negative results

166 papers: 159 positive, 7 negative or no effect

158 papers in the same direction as this claim · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    total dry matter accumulation was higher under zinc biofortification than other treatments (210.79 g).

    Growth, Yield and Economics of Pigeonpea as Influenced by Biofortification of Zinc and Iron · 2020 · compared with rest of the treatments

    Same directionCited by this paper

  2. positive
    Nano foliar micronutrients with RDF increased pigeonpea grain yield over RDF alone.

    Effect of conventional and nano micronutrient fertilizers on yield and economics of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] · 2017 · compared with RDF alone

    Same directionCited by this paper

  3. no effect
    Grain yields were not increased with N fertilizer.

    Comparison of N2 Fixation and Yields in Cajanus cajan between Hydrogenase-Positive and Hydrogenase-Negative Rhizobia by In Situ Acetylene Reduction Assays and Direct 15N Partitioning · 1983

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Vermicompost and phosphocompost gave identical growth and yield outcomes.

    Response of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) varieties to organic manures and their influence on fertility and enzyme activity of soil · 2006 · compared with phosphoeompost

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Fertilizer treatments had no effect on green pod yield.

    Influence of Fertility Level on the Protein Content and Agronomic Characters of Pigeonpeas in an Oxisol · 1971

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Palm bunch ash and PK fertiliser application had no significant effect on pigeonpea grain yield.

    Productivity of pigeonpea genotypes as influenced by palm bunch ash and NPK fertiliser application and their residual effects on maize yield · 2018

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Growth regulators and foliar fertilizer had no effect on pod set or final pod number.

    Influence of Nutrition and Bioregulators on Flower Retention, Pod Set and Yield on Pigeon Peas (Cajanus Cajan (L.) Huth) · 1981

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Organic fertilizer had no effect on Cajanus cajan productivity compared with the control

    Effect of Cow Dung as Organic Manure on the Productivity of Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp (Pigeon pea) · 2020 · compared with control

    Opposite direction

157 papers more in this group

See all 166 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.