Paper · 2001 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Nutrient management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)-based cropping systems

A.N. GIRI; M.N. DESHMUKH; S.B. GORE

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted on clayey soils during the rainy seasons of 1999-2003 at Parbhani, to study nutrient management in cotton (Grossypium hirsutum L.)-based intercropping systems. Sole cotton re- corded significantly higher seed-cotton yield than cotton + blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) and cotton + soy- bean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] intercropping systems. However, highest and significant cotton-equivalent yields were recorded in cotton + blackgram intercropping, followed by cotton + soybean than sole crop of cotton. Fur- ther, yield of seed cotton, intercrop and cotton equivalent were enhanced significantly with every higher fertilizer level and highest values were recorded with 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF). The performance of cotton + blackgram (1:l) with 100% RDF was better than all the treatments for cotton-equivalent yield and net monetary returns. The uptake of NPK by cotton was significantly more under sole cotton and cotton intercropped with blackgram than the cotton intercropped with soybean. Application of 100% RDF recorded significantly higher NPK uptake by cotton than 75% and 50% RDF. Key words : + blackgram/soybean intercropping, Cotton-equivalent yield Cotton

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole cotton had significantly higher seed-cotton yield than cotton with blackgram.

Treatment
Sole cottone0
Outcome
seed-cotton yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
cotton + blackgrame0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“Sole cotton re- corded significantly higher seed-cotton yield than cotton + blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) and cotton + soy- bean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] intercropping systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–370 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole cotton had significantly higher seed-cotton yield than cotton with soybean.

Treatment
Sole cottone0
Outcome
seed-cotton yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
cotton + soy- beane0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“Sole cotton re- corded significantly higher seed-cotton yield than cotton + blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) and cotton + soy- bean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] intercropping systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 193–370 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton with blackgram produced the highest significant cotton-equivalent yield.

Treatment
cotton + blackgram intercroppinge0
Outcome
cotton-equivalent yieldse0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
sole crop of cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“highest and significant cotton-equivalent yields were recorded in cotton + blackgram intercropping, followed by cotton + soybean than sole crop of cotton.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–534 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton with soybean produced more cotton-equivalent yield than sole cotton.

Treatment
cotton + soybeane0
Outcome
cotton-equivalent yieldse0
Comparator
sole crop of cottone0

Not reportedDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“highest and significant cotton-equivalent yields were recorded in cotton + blackgram intercropping, followed by cotton + soybean than sole crop of cotton.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–534 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Each higher fertilizer level significantly increased seed cotton yield.

Treatment
every higher fertilizer levele0
Outcome
yield of seed cottone0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“yield of seed cotton, intercrop and cotton equivalent were enhanced significantly with every higher fertilizer level and highest values were recorded with 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–743 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Each higher fertilizer level significantly increased intercrop yield.

Treatment
every higher fertilizer levele0
Outcome
intercrope0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“yield of seed cotton, intercrop and cotton equivalent were enhanced significantly with every higher fertilizer level and highest values were recorded with 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–743 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Each higher fertilizer level significantly increased cotton-equivalent yield.

Treatment
every higher fertilizer levele0
Outcome
cotton equivalente0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“yield of seed cotton, intercrop and cotton equivalent were enhanced significantly with every higher fertilizer level and highest values were recorded with 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–743 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton with blackgram at 100% RDF was best for cotton-equivalent yield.

Treatment
cotton + blackgram (1:l) with 100% RDFe0
Outcome
cotton-equivalent yielde0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
all the treatmentse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“The performance of cotton + blackgram (1:l) with 100% RDF was better than all the treatments for cotton-equivalent yield and net monetary returns.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 744–890 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton with blackgram at 100% RDF was best for net monetary returns.

Treatment
cotton + blackgram (1:l) with 100% RDFe0
Outcome
net monetary returnse0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
all the treatmentse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“The performance of cotton + blackgram (1:l) with 100% RDF was better than all the treatments for cotton-equivalent yield and net monetary returns.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 744–890 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton NPK uptake was significantly greater in sole cropping than with soybean.

Treatment
sole cottone0
Outcome
uptake of NPK by cottone0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
cotton intercropped with soybeane0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“The uptake of NPK by cotton was significantly more under sole cotton and cotton intercropped with blackgram than the cotton intercropped with soybean.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1041 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton NPK uptake was significantly greater with blackgram than with soybean.

Treatment
cotton intercropped with blackgrame0
Outcome
uptake of NPK by cottone0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
cotton intercropped with soybeane0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“The uptake of NPK by cotton was significantly more under sole cotton and cotton intercropped with blackgram than the cotton intercropped with soybean.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1041 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

100% RDF produced significantly higher cotton NPK uptake than 75% and 50% RDF.

Treatment
100% RDFe0
Outcome
NPK uptake by cottone0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
75% and 50% RDFe0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 23–29 · show in text ↑
e0

“Application of 100% RDF recorded significantly higher NPK uptake by cotton than 75% and 50% RDF.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1042–1138 · show in text ↑

Vigna mungo · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Vigna mungo · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

Glycine max · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 18 positive, 9 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

intercropping · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

104 papers: 85 positive, 19 negative or no effect

84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

100 papers more in this group

See all 104 papers →

intercropping · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

fertilization · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 36 positive, 3 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

131 papers: 121 positive, 10 negative or no effect

120 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

127 papers more in this group

See all 131 papers →

fertilization · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

550 papers: 497 positive, 53 negative or no effect

496 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

546 papers more in this group

See all 550 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.