Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Conventional tillage raised maize grain yield by 16.9% versus zero tillage.

A claim from Effect of tillage and weed management on productivity and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays) · 2001

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional tillage raised maize grain yield by 16.9% versus zero tillage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
conventional tillagee0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
in- creasinge0
Value
16.9e0
Comparator
zero tillagee0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

“Compared with zero tillage, the conventional tillage and raised seed-bed methods being statistically at par, resulted in significantly higher N, P and K uptake by maize crop (18.1, 25.0 and 20.2% by the former and 16.1, 36.2 and 16.7% respectively by the latter method) and lower depletion of these nutrients by weeds (13.5, 15.6 and 10.8% by the former and 30.3, 30.3 and 29.0%, respectively by the latter method), in- creasing the average grain yield of the crop by 16.9 and 13.7% by these methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 576–1075

Title

Effect of tillage and weed management on productivity and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays)

PANKAJ CHOPRA; N.N. ANGIRAS Indian Journal of Agronomy 2001. doi:10.59797/ija.v53i1.4837

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-e6b532f8880f884867c916d6f7aedae234b5859662b9b0f4c5cde3af7812f701 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

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

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.