Abstract
The performance of five maize genotypes grown using resource conserving technologies (no till (NT)on the flat and on permanent beds) was compared with conventional tillage (CT) in terms of economic yield, irrigation water productivity, profitability and soil properties during winter 2004-05 on a sandy loam soil in northern India. Yields of the highest yielding varieties were similar on NT permanent beds and CT. There was an average 4% increase in grain yield and a 20% increase in profitability with NT permanent beds compared with CT, and 16 and 24% increases in yield and profitability on NT permanent beds compared with NT on the flat. Irrigation water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) in permanent beds was 42 and 35% higher than in CT and NT on the flat, respectively. Among the genotypes, the performance, in terms of economic yield (t/ha), water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) and profitability (US$/ ha), of Bio-9681 was best (9.4, 2.3 and 814) followed by ST-2324 (9.3, 2.3 and 804) and HQPM-1 (8.8, 2.1 and 748), respectively. The soil physical properties (bulk density, aggregate size distribution and cone resistance) after one year of experimentation were improved in the NT systems compared to CT.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Highest-yielding varieties had similar yields on no-till permanent beds and conventional tillage.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“Yields of the highest yielding varieties were similar on NT permanent beds and CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till permanent beds increased grain yield by 4% versus conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“There was an average 4% increase in grain yield and a 20% increase in profitability with NT permanent beds compared with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till permanent beds increased profitability by 20% versus conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“There was an average 4% increase in grain yield and a 20% increase in profitability with NT permanent beds compared with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till permanent beds increased yield by 16% versus no-till flat ground.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“16 and 24% increases in yield and profitability on NT permanent beds compared with NT on the flat”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till permanent beds increased profitability by 24% versus no-till flat ground.
- Treatment
- NT permanent bedse0
- Outcome
- profitabilitye0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Comparator
- NT on the flate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“16 and 24% increases in yield and profitability on NT permanent beds compared with NT on the flat”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased irrigation water productivity by 42% versus conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- permanent bedse0
- Outcome
- Irrigation water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 42e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“Irrigation water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) in permanent beds was 42 and 35% higher than in CT and NT on the flat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased irrigation water productivity by 35% versus no-till flat ground.
- Treatment
- permanent bedse0
- Outcome
- Irrigation water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Comparator
- NT on the flate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“Irrigation water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) in permanent beds was 42 and 35% higher than in CT and NT on the flat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-9681 had economic yield of 9.4 t/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“economic yield (t/ha), water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) and profitability (US$/ ha), of Bio-9681 was best (9.4, 2.3 and 814)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-9681 had water productivity of 2.3 kg grain m -3 water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) and profitability (US$/ ha), of Bio-9681 was best (9.4, 2.3 and 814)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bio-9681 had profitability of 814 US$/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“profitability (US$/ ha), of Bio-9681 was best (9.4, 2.3 and 814)”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-2324 had economic yield of 9.3 t/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“ST-2324 (9.3, 2.3 and 804)”
e1“economic yield (t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-2324 had water productivity of 2.3 kg grain m -3 water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“ST-2324 (9.3, 2.3 and 804)”
e1“economic yield (t/ha), water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) and profitability”
Claim · model-written summary
ST-2324 had profitability of 804 US$/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“ST-2324 (9.3, 2.3 and 804)”
e1“profitability (US$/ ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
HQPM-1 had economic yield of 8.8 t/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“HQPM-1 (8.8, 2.1 and 748)”
e1“economic yield (t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
HQPM-1 had water productivity of 2.1 kg grain m -3 water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“HQPM-1 (8.8, 2.1 and 748)”
e1“economic yield (t/ha), water productivity (kg grain m -3 water) and profitability”
Claim · model-written summary
HQPM-1 had profitability of 748 US$/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“HQPM-1 (8.8, 2.1 and 748)”
e1“profitability (US$/ ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
After one year, no-till systems improved soil physical properties over conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- NT systemse0
- Outcome
- soil physical properties (bulk density, aggregate size distribution and cone resistance)e0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“WINTER MAIZE”
e0“The soil physical properties (bulk density, aggregate size distribution and cone resistance) after one year of experimentation were improved in the NT systems compared to CT.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.