Paper · 2008

Yield and N use efficiency of permanent bed rice-wheat systems in north-western India: effect of N fertilisation, mulching and crop establishment method

E. Humphreys; Atul Nayyar; Jagadish Timsina

20
claims
28
verbatim quotes
4
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Rice‐wheat (RW) is the dominant cropping system in north-western India and is of immense importance for national food security. However, the sustainability of the RW system is threatened by water shortage and nutrient mining. Permanent bed RW systems with crop residue retention have been proposed as a means of reducing irrigation water use, improving soil properties and reducing the cost of crop establishment. A field experiment was conducted over 4 years in Punjab, India, to compare conventional and permanent bed RW cropping systems, with and without retention of crop residues, in terms of crop performance and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). Two methods of rice establishment (transplanting and dry seeding) were included on both beds and flats with four N application rates (0, 80, 120, 160 kg N/ha). Rice grain yield increased significantly as N rate increased up to 160 kg N/ha irrespective of method of rice establishment. Puddled transplanted rice (PTR) was always superior to all other establishment methods in terms of biomass, yield and NUE. At 120 kg N/ha, yield of transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB) was 29% lower than yield of PTR, while yield of direct-seeded rice on permanent beds (DSRB) was even lower (44% lower than yield of TRB). Wheat straw mulch further reduced yield of DSRB by 26% on average, but there was no effect of mulching on yield of TRB. Dry-seeded rice on flats and beds was prone to severe iron deficiency and root nematode infestation. Yield of DSRB relative to yield of PTR declined as the beds aged but there was no trend in relative yield of TRB. Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus grain was 30% in PTR compared with 14% for TRB and 17% for DSRB. The majority (65‐83%) of the crop N uptake was derived from the soil in all treatments despite the application of urea at 120 kg N/ha. Total N losses from the urea N applied to rice ranged from 52% to 60% in TRB and DSRB compared with 38% in PTR. Wheat yield increased with N rate up to 120 kg N/ha, with further significant response to 160 kg N/ha in 2 of the 4 years. Wheat grain yield on permanent beds after TRB and DSRB was 75‐96% of that of conventionally tilled wheat (CTW), with no trend in relative yield over time as the beds aged. Grain yield of wheat was similar in CTW and direct-drilled (‘zero-till’) wheat (DDW) on the flat. The 15N recovery in the wheat plants in all flat and bed treatments was similar. Straw mulch had no effect on yield or NUE of wheat. Recoveries of applied N in the wheat plants (27‐38%) and soil (45‐59%) were much higher than in rice. Total fertiliser N losses were

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 20

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice yield rose significantly with nitrogen up to 160 kg N per hectare.

Treatment
N rate increased up to 160 kg N/hae0
Outcome
Rice grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rice grain yield increased significantly as N rate increased up to 160 kg N/ha irrespective of method of rice establishment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 810–933 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Puddled transplanted rice exceeded other methods for biomass, yield and nitrogen use efficiency.

Treatment
Puddled transplanted rice (PTR)e0
Outcome
biomass, yield and NUEe0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
all other establishment methodse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Puddled transplanted rice (PTR) was always superior to all other establishment methods in terms of biomass, yield and NUE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–1056 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Transplanted rice on permanent beds yielded 29% less than puddled transplanted rice at 120 kg N per hectare.

Treatment
transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Value
29%e0
Qualifier
120 kg N/hae0
Comparator
PTRe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At 120 kg N/ha, yield of transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB) was 29% lower than yield of PTR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Direct seeded rice on permanent beds yielded 44% less than transplanted rice on permanent beds.

Treatment
direct-seeded rice on permanent beds (DSRB)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Value
44%e0
Comparator
TRBe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield of direct-seeded rice on permanent beds (DSRB) was even lower (44% lower than yield of TRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1261 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat straw mulch lowered direct seeded rice bed yield by 26% on average.

Treatment
Wheat straw mulche0
Outcome
yield of DSRBe0
Direction
reducede0
Value
26%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wheat straw mulch further reduced yield of DSRB by 26% on average”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1263–1328 · show in text ↑
e1

“direct-seeded rice on permanent beds (DSRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1216 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching did not affect transplanted rice bed yield.

Treatment
mulchinge0
Outcome
yield of TRBe0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no effect of mulching on yield of TRB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1334–1381 · show in text ↑
e1

“transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry seeded rice on flats and beds developed severe iron deficiency.

Treatment
Dry-seeded rice on flats and bedse0
Outcome
severe iron deficiencye0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dry-seeded rice on flats and beds was prone to severe iron deficiency and root nematode infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1482 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry seeded rice on flats and beds was prone to root nematode infestation.

Interactor
root nematodee0pathogen
Outcome
root nematode infestatione0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dry-seeded rice on flats and beds was prone to severe iron deficiency and root nematode infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1482 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Direct seeded bed rice yield relative to puddled transplanted rice declined as beds aged.

Outcome
Yield of DSRB relative to yield of PTRe0
Direction
declinede0
Setting
bedse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yield of DSRB relative to yield of PTR declined as the beds aged”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1484–1548 · show in text ↑
e1

“direct-seeded rice on permanent beds (DSRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1216 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Transplanted bed rice relative yield showed no trend as beds aged.

Treatment
transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB)e1
Outcome
relative yield of TRBe0
Direction
no trende0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no trend in relative yield of TRB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1553–1596 · show in text ↑
e1

“transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer nitrogen recovery was 30% in puddled transplanted rice.

Material
PTRe0
Outcome
Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus graine0
Value
30%e0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus grain was 30% in PTR compared with 14% for TRB and 17% for DSRB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1598–1706 · show in text ↑
e1

“Puddled transplanted rice (PTR)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 935–966 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer nitrogen recovery was 14% in transplanted bed rice.

Material
TRBe0
Outcome
Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus graine0
Value
14%e0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus grain was 30% in PTR compared with 14% for TRB and 17% for DSRB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1598–1706 · show in text ↑
e1

“transplanted rice on permanent beds (TRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer nitrogen recovery was 17% in direct seeded bed rice.

Material
DSRBe0
Outcome
Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus graine0
Value
17%e0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery of fertiliser 15N in the straw plus grain was 30% in PTR compared with 14% for TRB and 17% for DSRB”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1598–1706 · show in text ↑
e1

“direct-seeded rice on permanent beds (DSRB)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1216 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil supplied most crop nitrogen uptake despite urea application.

Taxon
Rice‐wheat (RW)e1
Outcome
crop N uptake was derived from the soile0
Value
65‐83%e0

Verbatim

e0

“The majority (65‐83%) of the crop N uptake was derived from the soil in all treatments despite the application of urea at 120 kg N/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1708–1841 · show in text ↑
e1

“Rice‐wheat (RW)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–15 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total urea nitrogen losses were 52% to 60% in transplanted and direct seeded bed rice.

Material
TRB and DSRBe0
Outcome
Total N losses from the urea Ne0
Value
52% to 60%e0
Qualifier
38% in PTRe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total N losses from the urea N applied to rice ranged from 52% to 60% in TRB and DSRB compared with 38% in PTR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1843–1953 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat yield rose with nitrogen through 120 kg per hectare and sometimes to 160.

Treatment
N rate up to 120 kg N/hae0
Outcome
Wheat yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
further significant response to 160 kg N/ha in 2 of the 4 yearse0

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

“Wheat yield increased with N rate up to 120 kg N/ha, with further significant response to 160 kg N/ha in 2 of the 4 years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1955–2076 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Permanent bed wheat yielded 75–96% of conventionally tilled wheat, without an age trend.

Treatment
permanent beds after TRB and DSRBe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Value
75‐96%e0
Comparator
conventionally tilled wheat (CTW)e0

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

“Wheat grain yield on permanent beds after TRB and DSRB was 75‐96% of that of conventionally tilled wheat (CTW), with no trend in relative yield over time as the beds aged”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2078–2248 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional and direct drilled wheat on flats had similar yield.

Treatment
direct-drilled (‘zero-till’) wheat (DDW)e0
Outcome
Grain yielde0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
CTWe0

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 of wheat was similar in CTW and direct-drilled (‘zero-till’) wheat (DDW) on the flat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2250–2346 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat nitrogen recovery was similar among flat and bed treatments, and straw mulch did not affect yield or efficiency.

Outcome
15N recovery in the wheat plantse0
Direction
similare0

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

“The 15N recovery in the wheat plants in all flat and bed treatments was similar. Straw mulch had no effect on yield or NUE of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2348–2479 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applied nitrogen recovery in wheat was 27–38% in plants and 45–59% in soil.

Outcome
Recoveries of applied N in the wheat plantse0
Direction
much highere0
Value
27‐38%e0
Qualifier
45‐59%e0

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

“Recoveries of applied N in the wheat plants (27‐38%) and soil (45‐59%) were much higher than in rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2481–2581 · show in text ↑

Triticum aestivum · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

124 papers: 110 positive, 14 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 110 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

120 papers more in this group

See all 124 papers →

Oryza sativa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

154 papers: 128 positive, 26 negative or no effect

25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 128 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

150 papers more in this group

See all 154 papers →

mulching · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Results differ

126 papers: 106 positive, 20 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 106 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

122 papers more in this group

See all 126 papers →

transplanting · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 16 positive, 2 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

tillage · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 21 positive, 6 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

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

176 papers: 129 positive, 47 negative or no effect

46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 129 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

172 papers more in this group

See all 176 papers →

organic · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

327 papers: 279 positive, 48 negative or no effect

47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 279 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

323 papers more in this group

See all 327 papers →

transplanting · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

1,078 papers: 922 positive, 156 negative or no effect

155 papers in the same direction as this paper · 922 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,074 papers more in this group

See all 1,078 papers →

8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.