Abstract
SUMMARY Preparation of small catchment areas on rainfed valley floor soils in highland Balochistan, Pakistan, is a low-cost method of generating run-off and increasing crop yields within the cropped areas. The effect of different proportions of water catchment area to cropped area were investigated by comparing a control treatment with the entire area planted to the crop (traditional rainfed agriculture); a 1:1 treatment, with one half of the area used for water catchment and one half for planting; and a 2:1 treatment, with two thirds of the area used for water catchment and one third for planting. Results from six seasons of trials using wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) showed that the 1:1 treatment had 23% higher net benefits than the control, with a 19% reduction in the coefficient of variation. The 2:1 treatment had 29% lower net benefits than the control and reduced the variation in net benefits by 8%. By contrast, four seasons of trials using barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) showed that the l: l treatment yielded 25% lower net benefits than the control but increased by 4% the variation in net benefits. Treatment 2:1 had 36% lower net benefits than the control and 18% more variation. Even though the gross revenue from wheat under the 1:1 treatment was less than that from the control, the reduction in total costs in the 1:1 treatment resulted in larger net benefits than the control. Water-harvesting in the valley floors is not a net yield-increasing technology. Land suitable for cultivation is limited and the increases in yields in the cropped area resulting from water-harvesting are offset by the opportunity costs of the catchment area. However, wheat grown in a 1:1 ratio of cropped to catchment area can increase farmers' income and decrease its variation. For barley, farmers are better off using their traditional management practice than giving up part of their cropped area to create water catchments.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, the 1:1 treatment had 23% higher net benefits than the control.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume2 - Treatment
- 1:1 treatmente2
- Outcome
- net benefitse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 23%e2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“using wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) showed that the 1:1 treatment had 23% higher net benefits than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, the 2:1 treatment had 29% lower net benefits than the control.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- 2:1 treatmente3
- Outcome
- net benefitse3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Value
- 29%e3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“using wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) showed that the 1:1 treatment had 23% higher net benefits than the control”
e3“The 2:1 treatment had 29% lower net benefits than the control and reduced the variation in net benefits by 8%”
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, the 1:1 treatment lowered gross revenue relative to the control.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- 1:1 treatmente4
- Outcome
- gross revenue from wheate4
- Direction
- lesse4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Even though the gross revenue from wheat under the 1:1 treatment was less than that from the control, the reduction in total costs in the 1:1 treatment resulted in larger net benefits than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, the 1:1 treatment reduced total costs relative to the control.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- 1:1 treatmente4
- Outcome
- total costse4
- Direction
- reductione4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Even though the gross revenue from wheat under the 1:1 treatment was less than that from the control, the reduction in total costs in the 1:1 treatment resulted in larger net benefits than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In barley, the 1:1 treatment had 25% lower net benefits than the control.
- Taxon
- barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree5 - Treatment
- l: l treatmente5
- Outcome
- net benefitse5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Value
- 25%e5
- Comparator
- controle5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e5“four seasons of trials using barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) showed that the l: l treatment yielded 25% lower net benefits than the control”
Claim · model-written summary
In barley, the 1:1 treatment increased the variation in net benefits by 4%.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree5
- Treatment
- l: l treatmente5
- Outcome
- variation in net benefitse6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Value
- 4%e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“four seasons of trials using barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) showed that the l: l treatment yielded 25% lower net benefits than the control”
e6“but increased by 4% the variation in net benefits”
Claim · model-written summary
In barley, the 2:1 treatment had 36% lower net benefits than the control.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree5
- Treatment
- Treatment 2:1e7
- Outcome
- net benefitse7
- Direction
- lowere7
- Value
- 36%e7
- Comparator
- controle7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“four seasons of trials using barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) showed that the l: l treatment yielded 25% lower net benefits than the control”
e7“Treatment 2:1 had 36% lower net benefits than the control and 18% more variation”
Claim · model-written summary
In barley, the 2:1 treatment increased the variation in net benefits by 18%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“four seasons of trials using barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) showed that the l: l treatment yielded 25% lower net benefits than the control”
e7“Treatment 2:1 had 36% lower net benefits than the control and 18% more variation”
Claim · model-written summary
Water-harvesting in valley floors is not a net yield-increasing technology for cereals.
- Taxon
- Cereal Productiont0
- Treatment
- Water-harvesting in the valley floorse1
- Outcome
- net yield-increasing technologye1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
t0“Increasing Cereal Production”
e1“Water-harvesting in the valley floors is not a net yield-increasing technology”
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, the 1:1 treatment reduced the coefficient of variation by 19%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- 1:1 treatmente2
- Outcome
- coefficient of variatione6
- Direction
- reductione6
- Value
- 19%e6
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“using wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) showed that the 1:1 treatment had 23% higher net benefits than the control”
e6“with a 19% reduction in the coefficient of variation”
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, the 2:1 treatment reduced the variation in net benefits by 8%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- 2:1 treatmente3
- Outcome
- variation in net benefitse3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 8%e3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“using wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) showed that the 1:1 treatment had 23% higher net benefits than the control”
e3“The 2:1 treatment had 29% lower net benefits than the control and reduced the variation in net benefits by 8%”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grown in a 1:1 ratio of cropped to catchment area can increase farmers income and decrease its variation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- increase farmers' income and decrease its variatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“wheat grown in a 1:1 ratio of cropped to catchment area can increase farmers' income and decrease its variation”
Claim · model-written summary
For barley, farmers are better off using their traditional management practice than creating water catchments.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree1
- Outcome
- better off using their traditional management practicee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“For barley, farmers are better off using their traditional management practice than giving up part of their cropped area to create water catchments”