Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Cotton growth parameters, yield attributes and seed cotton yield were higher under reduced tillage and FIRB, on par with several conventional and reduced tillage configurations.

A claim from Growth, productivity and economics of cotton - maize cropping systems influence by tillage and land configuration · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton growth parameters, yield attributes and seed cotton yield were higher under reduced tillage and FIRB, on par with several conventional and reduced tillage configurations.

Treatment
reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRBe0
Outcome
growth parameters, yield attributes and seed cotton yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on ridges and furrowse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The result of two cropping cycles revealed that the growth parameters, yield attributes and seed cotton yield of cotton were higher in the reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB which was on par with conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on ridges and furrows (existing practice as check), conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB, reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB and reduced tillage once to cotton alone and planting on FIRB.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–1065

Title

Growth, productivity and economics of cotton - maize cropping systems influence by tillage and land configuration

P. PUVILA; K. SIDDESWARAN; G. MARIAPPAN AGRICULTURE UPDATE 2017. doi:10.15740/has/au/12.techsear(7)2017/1859-1865

Other claims from this paper (10)

Record rev-b4ce01732f960b3f8f717cec7615fe3b5d58e409feb49cb0456f37ed83214cbe · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

Zea mays · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

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

2 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

159 papers: 113 positive, 46 negative or no effect

112 papers in the same direction as this claim · 38 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

150 papers more in this group

See all 159 papers →

irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

399 papers: 304 positive, 95 negative or no effect

303 papers in the same direction as this claim · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

390 papers more in this group

See all 399 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.