Paper · 2012 · Journal of Food Legumes

Impact of conservation practices on crop water use and productivity in chickpea under middle Indo-Gangetic plains

J. P. Mishra; C. S. Praharaj; K.K. Singh; et al.

9
claims
9
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The Middle Indo-Gangetic Plains is one of the important domains of chickpea production in which the crop is grown in diverse production systems. Since the crop is predominantly grown under rainfed conditions, it experiences a deficit in soil moisture condition especially at its terminal growth stages causing low productivity. This is more pertinent during rabi season although the crop is having unique adaptive mechanisms to moisture stress. To mitigate the effect of moisture stress with improved agronomy under rainfed situation, the present study was carried out at Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur during rabi seasons of 2008–10. Resource conservation practices with tillage and mulching were evaluated on the productivity and water use efficiency of popular chickpea genotypes. Results showed that the contribution of deeper layers (30–60 cm) in the soil profile increased with the depth of tillage as was evident from different mulching and tillage treatments. The highest soil moisture depletion as measured through seasonal evapo-transpiration (ET) was recorded under no mulch and zero tillage in both the surface (0–30 cm) and sub-surface (30–60 cm) depths during both the years of study. Tillage practices could not influence seed yield of chickpea during both the years of study. Cultural mulch however, produced higher seed yield (1876 kg/ha) during 2008–09 while none of the mulching practices could produce difference in seed yield during 2009–10 due to optimum rainfall and its fairly well distribution. Amongst chickpea genotypes, ‘JG 16’ produced the highest seed yield of 1858 kg/ha during 2009–10 while ‘KWR 108’ in 2008–09 (1961 kg/ha). Water use efficiency (WUE) was the highest in deep tillage and cultural mulch during 2008–09; while conventional tillage and no mulch recorded higher WUE in 2009–10.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Deeper tillage increased the contribution of deeper soil layers.

Treatment
depth of tillagee0
Outcome
contribution of deeper layers (30–60 cm) in the soil profilee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the contribution of deeper layers (30–60 cm) in the soil profile increased with the depth of tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–917 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No mulch and zero tillage had the highest soil moisture depletion in both depths and years.

Treatment
no mulch and zero tillagee0
Outcome
soil moisture depletione0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
both the years of studye0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The highest soil moisture depletion as measured through seasonal evapo-transpiration (ET) was recorded under no mulch and zero tillage in both the surface (0–30 cm) and sub-surface (30–60 cm) depths during both the years of study.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1211 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage practices did not influence chickpea seed yield in either year.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
Tillage practicese0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
could not influencee0

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“Tillage practices could not influence seed yield of chickpea during both the years of study.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1212–1304 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultural mulch produced higher seed yield of 1876 kg/ha in 2008–09.

Treatment
Cultural mulche0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
1876 kg/hae0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Cultural mulch however, produced higher seed yield (1876 kg/ha) during 2008–09”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1383 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching practices produced no seed yield difference in 2009–10.

Treatment
mulching practicese0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
could produce differencee0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“none of the mulching practices could produce difference in seed yield during 2009–10”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1390–1474 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

JG 16 had the highest 2009–10 seed yield, 1858 kg/ha.

Material
‘JG 16’e0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1858 kg/hae0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“‘JG 16’ produced the highest seed yield of 1858 kg/ha during 2009–10”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1561–1629 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

KWR 108 had the highest 2008–09 seed yield, 1961 kg/ha.

Material
‘KWR 108’e0
Outcome
‘KWR 108’ in 2008–09e0
Value
1961 kg/hae0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“‘KWR 108’ in 2008–09 (1961 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1636–1669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Deep tillage and cultural mulch gave the highest WUE in 2008–09.

Treatment
deep tillage and cultural mulche0
Outcome
Water use efficiency (WUE)e0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Water use efficiency (WUE) was the highest in deep tillage and cultural mulch during 2008–09”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1671–1763 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional tillage and no mulch gave higher WUE in 2009–10.

Treatment
conventional tillage and no mulche0
Outcome
WUEe0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“conventional tillage and no mulch recorded higher WUE in 2009–10”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1771–1835 · show in text ↑

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

97 papers: 79 positive, 18 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. 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.