Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during 2007-08 and 2010-11 at Belvatagi, Karnataka to study the effect of irrigation and crop residue mulching on water use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) - chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) sequence under no tillage condition. In this experiment, three irrigation levels (0.8, 0.6 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio) were combined with or without crop residue in no tillage situation in split plot design and compared with tillage control. Maize and chickpea grain yields were significantly influenced by irrigation. Application of crop residue did not affect the maize and chickpea but affected the maize - chickpea sequence as a whole. No till maize grain yield was higher with 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with residues (8.68 tonnes/ha) and was on par with tilled maize (8.69 tonnes/ha). This treatment also recorded higher water use efficiency (18.43 kg/ha-mm). No tillage significantly reduced the chickpea grain yield in comparison to normal tillage; but improved the water use efficiency. No tilled maize - chickpea sequence required irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with crop residue application @ 5 tonnes/ha for maize and 0.4 IW/CPE with residue for chickpea was found better for higher yield and water use efficiency.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly influenced maize grain yield.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize and chickpea grain yields were significantly influenced by irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation significantly influenced chickpea grain yield.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- chickpea grain yieldse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize and chickpea grain yields were significantly influenced by irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue application did not affect maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of crop residue did not affect the maize and chickpea but affected the maize - chickpea sequence as a whole.”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue application did not affect chickpea yield.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- crop residuee0
- Outcome
- chickpeae0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of crop residue did not affect the maize and chickpea but affected the maize - chickpea sequence as a whole.”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue application affected the whole maize-chickpea sequence.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of crop residue did not affect the maize and chickpea but affected the maize - chickpea sequence as a whole.”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till maize at 0.6 IW/CPE with residues yielded 8.68 tonnes/ha, comparable to tilled maize at 8.69.
- Treatment
- 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with residuese0
- Outcome
- maize grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 8.68 tonnes/hae0
- Qualifier
- 8.69 tonnes/hae0
- Comparator
- tilled maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No till maize grain yield was higher with 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with residues (8.68 tonnes/ha) and was on par with tilled maize (8.69 tonnes/ha).”
Claim · model-written summary
That maize treatment had higher water-use efficiency of 18.43 kg/ha-mm.
- Treatment
- 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with residuese1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 18.43 kg/ha-mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This treatment also recorded higher water use efficiency (18.43 kg/ha-mm).”
e1“No till maize grain yield was higher with 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with residues”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage significantly reduced chickpea grain yield relative to normal tillage.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- No tillagee0
- Outcome
- chickpea grain yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- normal tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage significantly reduced the chickpea grain yield in comparison to normal tillage; but improved the water use efficiency.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage improved chickpea water-use efficiency.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- No tillagee0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- normal tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No tillage significantly reduced the chickpea grain yield in comparison to normal tillage; but improved the water use efficiency.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors favor 0.6 IW/CPE plus residues for maize and 0.4 IW/CPE plus residues for chickpea.
- Outcome
- irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with crop residue application @ 5 tonnes/ha for maizee0
- Qualifier
- higher yield and water use efficiencye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No tilled maize - chickpea sequence required irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with crop residue application @ 5 tonnes/ha for maize and 0.4 IW/CPE with residue for chickpea was found better for higher yield and water use efficiency.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →organic · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 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.