Abstract
Field experiments were conducted at Phulbani, Orissa for 5 years during 2002–03 to 2006–07 to find out appropriate integrated nutrient management practice for yam + maize (1:2) intercropping system under rainfed condition to achieve higher system productivity, profitability and sustainability. Yam (100% population) and maize (45% population) received nutrient dose of 80 kg N + 26.2 kg P + 66.7 kg K and 36 kg N + 7.9 kg P + 15 kg K ha−1, respectively. Nutrient sources included various proportions of chemical fertilizer (CF), FYM or green leaf (GL). Integrated nutrient management practices influenced yield of both yam and maize significantly during all the years. Over seasons, integration of 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% N as FYM proved significantly better than all other nutrient management practices and registered maize green cob yield of 3.81 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.81 tha−1 and yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.97 tha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.30. This was followed by 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleaf with maize green cob yield of 3.45 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.35 t ha−1, yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.27 t ha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.21. Both the INM practices were equally and highly sustainable with SI value of 0.57. After five years of experimentation, INM practices and Farmers Practice of FYM only recorded higher organic carbon content and available P in soil as compared to application of chemical fertilizer only. Application 50% chemical fertilizer (40 kg N+13.1kg P + 33.3 kg K and 18kg N+3.9kg P + 7.5kg K ha−1 for yam and maize, respectively) coupled with 50% N as FYM (11.6 t ha−1) or greenleaf (Glyricidia leaves @ 14.5 t ha−1) may be recommended for sustained higher productivity and profitability of yam + maize (1:2) intercropping system under rainfed conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
maize green cob yield under fertilizer plus FYM was 3.81 t ha−1, significantly better than other nutrient practices.
- Treatment
- integration of 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% N as FYMe0
- Outcome
- maize green cob yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 3.81 t ha−1e0
- Comparator
- all other nutrient management practicese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“integration of 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% N as FYM proved significantly better than all other nutrient management practices and registered maize green cob yield of 3.81 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.81 tha−1 and yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.97 tha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.30”
Claim · model-written summary
yam tuber yield under fertilizer plus FYM was 8.81 tha−1, significantly better than other nutrient practices.
Verbatim
e0“integration of 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% N as FYM proved significantly better than all other nutrient management practices and registered maize green cob yield of 3.81 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.81 tha−1 and yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.97 tha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.30”
Claim · model-written summary
yam tuber equivalent yield under fertilizer plus FYM was 10.97 tha−1, significantly better than other nutrient practices.
Verbatim
e0“integration of 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% N as FYM proved significantly better than all other nutrient management practices and registered maize green cob yield of 3.81 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.81 tha−1 and yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.97 tha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.30”
Claim · model-written summary
benefit: cost ratio under fertilizer plus FYM was 1.30, significantly better than other nutrient practices.
Verbatim
e0“integration of 50% chemical fertilizer with 50% N as FYM proved significantly better than all other nutrient management practices and registered maize green cob yield of 3.81 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.81 tha−1 and yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.97 tha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.30”
Claim · model-written summary
maize green cob yield under fertilizer plus greenleaf was 3.45 t ha−1, ranking after the FYM treatment.
- Treatment
- 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleafe0
- Outcome
- maize green cob yielde0
- Direction
- followede0
- Value
- 3.45 t ha−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This was followed by 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleaf with maize green cob yield of 3.45 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.35 t ha−1, yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.27 t ha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.21”
Claim · model-written summary
yam tuber yield under fertilizer plus greenleaf was 8.35 t ha−1, ranking after the FYM treatment.
- Taxon
- yame0
- Treatment
- 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleafe0
- Outcome
- yam tuber yielde0
- Direction
- followede0
- Value
- 8.35 t ha−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was followed by 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleaf with maize green cob yield of 3.45 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.35 t ha−1, yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.27 t ha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.21”
Claim · model-written summary
yam tuber equivalent yield under fertilizer plus greenleaf was 10.27 t ha−1, ranking after the FYM treatment.
- Taxon
- yame0
- Treatment
- 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleafe0
- Outcome
- yam tuber equivalent yielde0
- Direction
- followede0
- Value
- 10.27 t ha−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was followed by 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleaf with maize green cob yield of 3.45 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.35 t ha−1, yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.27 t ha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.21”
Claim · model-written summary
benefit: cost ratio under fertilizer plus greenleaf was 1.21, ranking after the FYM treatment.
- Taxon
- yame0
- Treatment
- 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleafe0
- Outcome
- benefit: cost ratioe0
- Direction
- followede0
- Value
- 1.21e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was followed by 50% chemical fertilizer+50% N as greenleaf with maize green cob yield of 3.45 t ha−1, yam tuber yield of 8.35 t ha−1, yam tuber equivalent yield of 10.27 t ha−1 and benefit: cost ratio of 1.21”
Claim · model-written summary
Both integrated nutrient practices had equally high sustainability index values of 0.57.
Verbatim
e0“Both the INM practices were equally and highly sustainable with SI value of 0.57”
t0“yam (Dioscorea esculenta)+maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
organic carbon content was higher after INM or FYM-only practice than fertilizer-only practice.
Verbatim
e0“INM practices and Farmers Practice of FYM only recorded higher organic carbon content and available P in soil as compared to application of chemical fertilizer only”
t0“yam (Dioscorea esculenta)+maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
available P in soil was higher after INM or FYM-only practice than fertilizer-only practice.
Verbatim
e0“INM practices and Farmers Practice of FYM only recorded higher organic carbon content and available P in soil as compared to application of chemical fertilizer only”
t0“yam (Dioscorea esculenta)+maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend fertilizer plus FYM or greenleaf for sustained yam–maize productivity and profitability under rainfed conditions.
Verbatim
e0“Application 50% chemical fertilizer (40 kg N+13.1kg P + 33.3 kg K and 18kg N+3.9kg P + 7.5kg K ha−1 for yam and maize, respectively) coupled with 50% N as FYM (11.6 t ha−1) or greenleaf (Glyricidia leaves @ 14.5 t ha−1) may be recommended for sustained higher productivity and profitability of yam + maize (1:2) intercropping system under rainfed conditions”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · DioscoreaResults differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →fertilization · soil: chemistry · DioscoreaResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.