Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Yield of chickpea was highest in plots with combined organic manures and microbial consortia, at 1.60 t/ha

A claim from Impact of row ratios and nutrient management practices on yield, economics and nutrient uptake of mustard + chickpea intercropping system · 2024

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield of chickpea was highest in plots with combined organic manures and microbial consortia, at 1.60 t/ha

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume2
Treatment
20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortiae2
Outcome
Yields of both mustard and chickpeae2
Direction
higheste2
Value
1.60 t/hae2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“Yields of both mustard and chickpea were observed to be the highest in the plots treated with combination of organic manures and microbial consortia i.e., 20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortia (1.38 t/ha for mustard and 1.60 t/ha for chickpea)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–1062

Title

Impact of row ratios and nutrient management practices on yield, economics and nutrient uptake of mustard + chickpea intercropping system

SASMITA TRIPATHY; S.L. MEENA; SHIVA DHAR; et al. Indian Journal of Agronomy 2024. doi:10.59797/ija.v69i2.5503

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-e7f4d8b25bb7c01b5f340a740bd97a4951532dd693f7271bb7049f11396b8b2c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

nitrogen · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

102 papers: 93 positive, 9 negative or no effect

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

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

93 papers more in this group

See all 102 papers →

inoculation · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

217 papers: 200 positive, 17 negative or no effect

199 papers in the same direction as this claim · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

208 papers more in this group

See all 217 papers →

fertilization · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

345 papers: 326 positive, 19 negative or no effect

325 papers in the same direction as this claim · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

336 papers more in this group

See all 345 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.