Paper · 1987 · The Journal of Agricultural Science

Effect of preceding crops on the nitrogen requirement of pearl millet and phosphorus requirement of chickpea

S. S. Narwal; D. S. Malik

9
claims
11
verbatim quotes
3
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary A 2-year field study indicated that pearl millet yielded more when sown after fallow, cow pea and green gram than after maize. Preceding fallow, cow pea and green gram reduced the nitrogen requirement of pearl millet by 40 kg/ha compared with maize. Pearl millet responded linearly up to the highest rate of nitrogen (80 kg/ha). N applied to millet had no residual effect on the subsequent crop of chickpea. The chickpea yield followed the order fallow > green gram ≥ cow pea > maize. Chickpea responded to phosphorus up to 40 kg/ha. Green gram-pearl millet-chickpea proved the most profitable cropping sequence. Continuous cropping and application of nitrogen and phosphorus improved the organic carbon and available phosphorus but decreased the available potassium status of the soil.

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

Pearl millet yielded more after fallow, cow pea, or green gram than after maize.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment
fallow, cow pea and green grame0
Outcome
yieldede0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
maizee0

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

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“pearl millet yielded more when sown after fallow, cow pea and green gram than after maize.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 44–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fallow, cow pea, and green gram reduced millet N requirement by 40 kg/ha compared with maize.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment
fallow, cow pea and green grame0
Outcome
nitrogen requiremente0
Direction
reducede0
Value
40 kg/hae0
Comparator
maizee0

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

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Preceding fallow, cow pea and green gram reduced the nitrogen requirement of pearl millet by 40 kg/ha compared with maize.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Millet responded linearly to N up to 80 kg/ha.

Taxon
Pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment
nitrogen (80 kg/ha)e0
Outcome
respondede0
Direction
linearlye0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pearl millet responded linearly up to the highest rate of nitrogen (80 kg/ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen applied to millet had no residual effect on chickpea.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
N applied to millete0
Outcome
residual effecte0
Direction
no residual effecte0

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

“N applied to millet had no residual effect on the subsequent crop of chickpea.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 337–415 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea yield ranked fallow above green gram, cow pea, and maize.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Outcome
yielde0
Comparator
maizee0

Not reportedDirection

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

“The chickpea yield followed the order fallow > green gram ≥ cow pea > maize.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 416–492 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea responded to phosphorus up to 40 kg/ha.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
phosphorus up to 40 kg/hae0
Outcome
respondede0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Chickpea responded to phosphorus up to 40 kg/ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 493–541 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The green gram–millet–chickpea sequence was most profitable.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment
Green gram-pearl millet-chickpeae0
Outcome
profitable cropping sequencee0
Direction
most profitablee0

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

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Green gram-pearl millet-chickpea proved the most profitable cropping sequence.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–620 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping and N and P improved soil organic carbon and available phosphorus.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
Treatment
Continuous cropping and application of nitrogen and phosphoruse0
Outcome
organic carbon and available phosphoruse0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pearl millet and phosphorus requirement of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–108 · show in text ↑
e0

“Continuous cropping and application of nitrogen and phosphorus improved the organic carbon and available phosphorus but decreased the available potassium status of the soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 621–794 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping and N and P decreased available soil potassium.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanust0
Treatment
Continuous cropping and application of nitrogen and phosphoruse0
Outcome
available potassium status of the soile0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pearl millet and phosphorus requirement of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–108 · show in text ↑
e0

“Continuous cropping and application of nitrogen and phosphorus improved the organic carbon and available phosphorus but decreased the available potassium status of the soil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 621–794 · show in text ↑

Vigna unguiculata · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 19 positive, 2 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

Vigna radiata var. radiata · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results agree

15 papers: 15 positive, 0 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

rotation · soil: chemistry · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

phosphorus · soil: chemistry · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

rotation · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

phosphorus · nutrient: content · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 12 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

nitrogen · nutrient: content · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 29 positive, 1 negative or no effect

29 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 papers →

nitrogen · soil: chemistry · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.