Paper · 2013 · American Journal of Plant Sciences

Growth and Economic Assessment of Wheat under Tillage and Nitrogen Levels in Rice-Wheat System

Rafi Qamar; Ehsanullah; Abdul Rehman; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
15
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Mechanically post-harvest puddled rice field has stubbles that often delay timely planting of winter wheat crop. Zero tillage increased the net return by decreasing the unwise tillage operations and labor charges. Keep in view, a randomized complete block design experiment in a split plot arrangement was conducted with four tillage system [conventional tillage, CT; deep tillage, DT; zero tillage with zone disc tiller, ZDT; and happy seeder, HS] in main plots and five nitrogen levels [0, 75, 100, 125, and 150 kg·ha-1] in subplots during 2009 to 2010 and 2010 to 2011 cropping seasons. Results showed that in 2009-10 and 2010-11 grain yield (4.6 Mg·ha-1 and 5.7 Mg·ha-1) in DT and (4.5 Mg·ha-1 and 5.8 Mg·ha-1) in HS were significantly higher compared with CT and ZDT. Significantly, maximum leaf area index (5.18 and 5.24) and crop growth rate (12.14 g·m-2·d-1 and 13.15 g·m-2·d-1) were noted in DT. Grain protein (11.78%) was significantly higher in DT compared with CT, ZDT, and HS during 2009-10 and 2010-11. Total yield (12.4 Mg·ha-1 and 16.4 Mg·ha-1) and grain yield (4.9 Mg·ha-1 and 6.5 Mg·ha-1) at N125 kg·ha-1 while grain protein (13.52%) at N150 kg·ha-1 was significantly higher than other nitrogen levels. Maximum LAI (5.08 and 5.51) and crop growth rate (14.68 g m-2·d-1 and 15.77 g<span style="font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;white-space:normal;background-col

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Zero tillage increased net return by reducing tillage and labor charges.

Treatment
Zero tillagee0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Zero tillage increased the net return by decreasing the unwise tillage operations and labor charges”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–212 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Deep tillage had significantly higher grain yield than conventional and zone-disc zero tillage in both seasons.

Treatment
DTe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.6 Mg·ha-1 and 5.7 Mg·ha-1e0
Comparator
CT and ZDTe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grain yield (4.6 Mg·ha-1 and 5.7 Mg·ha-1) in DT and (4.5 Mg·ha-1 and 5.8 Mg·ha-1) in HS were significantly higher compared with CT and ZDT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 633–771 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Happy seeder had significantly higher grain yield than conventional and zone-disc zero tillage in both seasons.

Treatment
HSe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.5 Mg·ha-1 and 5.8 Mg·ha-1e0
Comparator
CT and ZDTe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grain yield (4.6 Mg·ha-1 and 5.7 Mg·ha-1) in DT and (4.5 Mg·ha-1 and 5.8 Mg·ha-1) in HS were significantly higher compared with CT and ZDT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 633–771 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Deep tillage produced maximum leaf area index.

Treatment
DTe0
Outcome
leaf area indexe0
Direction
maximume0
Value
5.18 and 5.24e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum leaf area index (5.18 and 5.24) and crop growth rate (12.14 g·m-2·d-1 and 13.15 g·m-2·d-1) were noted in DT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 788–903 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Deep tillage produced maximum crop growth rate.

Treatment
DTe0
Outcome
crop growth ratee0
Direction
maximume0
Value
12.14 g·m-2·d-1 and 13.15 g·m-2·d-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum leaf area index (5.18 and 5.24) and crop growth rate (12.14 g·m-2·d-1 and 13.15 g·m-2·d-1) were noted in DT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 788–903 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Deep tillage increased grain protein relative to the other tillage systems.

Treatment
DTe0
Outcome
Grain proteine0
Direction
highere0
Value
11.78%e0
Comparator
CT, ZDT, and HSe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grain protein (11.78%) was significantly higher in DT compared with CT, ZDT, and HS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 905–988 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

N125 kg·ha-1 produced higher total yield than other nitrogen levels.

Treatment
N125 kg·ha-1e0
Outcome
Total yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
12.4 Mg·ha-1 and 16.4 Mg·ha-1e0
Comparator
other nitrogen levelse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total yield (12.4 Mg·ha-1 and 16.4 Mg·ha-1) and grain yield (4.9 Mg·ha-1 and 6.5 Mg·ha-1) at N125 kg·ha-1 while grain protein (13.52%) at N150 kg·ha-1 was significantly higher than other nitrogen levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1219 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

N125 kg·ha-1 produced higher grain yield than other nitrogen levels.

Treatment
N125 kg·ha-1e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.9 Mg·ha-1 and 6.5 Mg·ha-1e0
Comparator
other nitrogen levelse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total yield (12.4 Mg·ha-1 and 16.4 Mg·ha-1) and grain yield (4.9 Mg·ha-1 and 6.5 Mg·ha-1) at N125 kg·ha-1 while grain protein (13.52%) at N150 kg·ha-1 was significantly higher than other nitrogen levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1219 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

N150 kg·ha-1 produced higher grain protein than other nitrogen levels.

Treatment
N150 kg·ha-1e0
Outcome
grain proteine0
Direction
highere0
Value
13.52%e0
Comparator
other nitrogen levelse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grain protein (13.52%) at N150 kg·ha-1 was significantly higher than other nitrogen levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1129–1219 · show in text ↑
t0

“of Wheat under Tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–53 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,410 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 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.