Paper · 2014 · Procedia Engineering

Effect of Conservation Agriculture on Maize-based Farming System in the Mid-hills of Nepal

Bikash Paudel; Theodore J.K. Radovich; Catherine Chan-Halbrendt; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
18
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Conservation agriculture (CA) systems composed of intercropping and strip tillage practices were evaluated on marginalized maize-based farming system in hill region of Nepal. On-farm experimental trials were conducted on the field of 25 smallholder farmers in three villages of central mid-hill region. Results indicated that although CA systems did not increase crop yields; higher return and revenue were generated due to increased number of crop harvests and higher price of the cash crops used in intercropping. Therefore, it was concluded that smallholder farmers should adopt CA system for increasing return and improving sustainability of the farming system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation agriculture systems of intercropping and strip tillage did not increase crop yields in the maize-based farming system in Nepal.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
CA systemse1
Outcome
crop yieldse1
Direction
did not increasee1
Setting
hill region of Nepale0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“marginalized maize-based farming system in hill region of Nepal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 110–173 · show in text ↑
e1

“CA systems did not increase crop yields; higher return and revenue were generated due to increased number of crop harvests and higher price of the cash crops used in intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 335–514 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation agriculture systems generated higher return and revenue because of more crop harvests and higher prices of the cash crops used in intercropping.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
CA systemse1
Outcome
return and revenuee1
Direction
highere1
Setting
hill region of Nepale0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“marginalized maize-based farming system in hill region of Nepal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 110–173 · show in text ↑
e1

“CA systems did not increase crop yields; higher return and revenue were generated due to increased number of crop harvests and higher price of the cash crops used in intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 335–514 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Smallholder farmers should adopt the conservation agriculture system to increase return and improve sustainability of the farming system.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Outcome
increasing return and improving sustainability of the farming systeme2

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“marginalized maize-based farming system in hill region of Nepal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 110–173 · show in text ↑
e2

“smallholder farmers should adopt CA system for increasing return and improving sustainability of the farming system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 549–664 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 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.