Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during Kharif 2001 and 2002 to find out the response of tillage practices and farmyard manure on water storage capacity of upland inseptisol in a randomized block design with four treatments and seven replications on the farmer's field of Tandpal watershed area, Bastar. The treatments were comprised T1-conventional tillage (one summer ploughing by country plough farmers' practice), T2 - conservation tillage (one summer ploughing by mould bold plough + twice disc harrowing), T3-T1 + farmyard manure 4 t ha-1, and T4-T2 + farmyard manure 4 t ha-1. The soil of the experimental site was moderately acidic in nature, having pH value between, 5.7 and 6.8. The organic carbon content was recorded low. The texture of the soil was sandy clay loam, and the soil was low in nitrogen and phosphorus content, however, medium in potash. In the treatment T3 and T4 the FYM was applied 4 t ha-1 at the time of ploughing. The rice cultivar Poornima was grown in a line at 20 cm row spacing using 60 kg nitrogen, 40 kg phosphorus and 20 kg potassium per hectare. Nitrogen was applied in three equal split doses at the time of sowing, maximum tillering and panicle initiation of crop. The crop was sown in both years in the last week of June. At the time of rice harvest the moisture content at different depths was recorded and it was noticed that the maximum value of soil water in the profile was under the treatment T4 followed by T3. It might have happened because of addition of organic matter, in the amount 4 t ha-1, which enhanced the percentage of microspores in the soil in coarse textured soil and thus helped in retaining higher soil water. The overall moisture content was higher in the treatments of conservational tillage as compared to conventional tillage. Looking at energy expenditure, application of FYM proved best in both conventional and conservational tillage practices.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
T4 gave the maximum soil water in the profile, followed by T3.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- soil water in the profilee0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Comparator
- T3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice Oryza sativa L.”
e0“the maximum value of soil water in the profile was under the treatment T4 followed by T3.”
e3“T4-T2 + farmyard manure 4 t ha-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage had higher moisture content than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- conservational tillagee1
- Outcome
- moisture contente1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice Oryza sativa L.”
e1“The overall moisture content was higher in the treatments of conservational tillage as compared to conventional tillage.”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmyard manure performed best for energy expenditure under both tillage systems.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- application of FYMe2
- Outcome
- energy expendituree2
- Direction
- beste2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice Oryza sativa L.”
e2“Looking at energy expenditure, application of FYM proved best in both conventional and conservational tillage practices.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · quality: grain · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.