Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Pali-Marwar during winter seasons (rabi) of 1997–98 to 2001–02 to study the effect of bunding, tillage and straw mulch on chickpea yield and water productivity. Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% and biological yield by 14% over no bunding and has attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile. Water use efficiency increased to 9.1 kg ha−1mm−1 from 8.5 kg ha−1mm−1 over in no bunding. The effect of deep tillage on crop growth and yield varied with total rainfall and its distribution. Deep tillage during intermittent drought period effectively conserved the rainwater and increased the grain yield of chickpea. Straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1 significantly increased mean grain yield of chickpea by 18% over no mulch with increased water use efficiency by 1.4 kg ha−1mm−1. Field bunding, deep ploughing during monsoon and straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1 after germination during winter is recommended for increased chickpea grain yield and water productivity through in-situ rainwater conservation practices in arid fringes where kharif crop fails.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% over no bunding.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume0 - Treatment
- Field bundinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18%e0
- Comparator
- no bundinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% and biological yield by 14% over no bunding and has attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile”
Claim · model-written summary
Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea biological yield by 14% over no bunding.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Field bundinge0
- Outcome
- biological yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14%e0
- Comparator
- no bundinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% and biological yield by 14% over no bunding and has attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile”
Claim · model-written summary
Field bunding is attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile as the cause of the chickpea yield increase.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Field bundinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Qualifier
- increased availability of soil water in the profilee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% and biological yield by 14% over no bunding and has attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of chickpea increased to 9.1 kg ha−1mm−1 from 8.5 kg ha−1mm−1 with field bunding compared with no bunding.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- Field bundinge0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 9.1 kg ha−1mm−1e1
- Qualifier
- from 8.5 kg ha−1mm−1e1
- Comparator
- no bundinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% and biological yield by 14% over no bunding and has attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile”
e1“Water use efficiency increased to 9.1 kg ha−1mm−1 from 8.5 kg ha−1mm−1 over in no bunding”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of deep tillage on chickpea crop growth and yield varied with total rainfall and its distribution.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- deep tillagee2
- Outcome
- crop growth and yielde2
- Qualifier
- varied with total rainfall and its distributione2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field bunding significantly increased mean chickpea grain yield by 18% and biological yield by 14% over no bunding and has attributed to increased availability of soil water in the profile”
e2“The effect of deep tillage on crop growth and yield varied with total rainfall and its distribution”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage during intermittent drought period effectively conserved rainwater in chickpea fields.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume3
- Treatment
- Deep tillage during intermittent drought periode3
- Outcome
- rainwatere3
- Direction
- conservede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Deep tillage during intermittent drought period effectively conserved the rainwater and increased the grain yield of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage during intermittent drought period increased chickpea grain yield.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume3
- Treatment
- Deep tillage during intermittent drought periode3
- Outcome
- grain yielde3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Deep tillage during intermittent drought period effectively conserved the rainwater and increased the grain yield of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching at 5 t ha−1 significantly increased chickpea grain yield by 18% over no mulch.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume4
- Treatment
- Straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1e4
- Outcome
- grain yielde4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 18%e4
- Comparator
- no mulche4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1 significantly increased mean grain yield of chickpea by 18% over no mulch with increased water use efficiency by 1.4 kg ha−1mm−1”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulching at 5 t ha−1 increased chickpea water use efficiency by 1.4 kg ha−1mm−1 over no mulch.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume4
- Treatment
- Straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1e4
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 1.4 kg ha−1mm−1e4
- Comparator
- no mulche4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1 significantly increased mean grain yield of chickpea by 18% over no mulch with increased water use efficiency by 1.4 kg ha−1mm−1”
Claim · model-written summary
Field bunding, deep ploughing during monsoon and straw mulching at 5 t ha−1 after germination are recommended for increased chickpea grain yield and water productivity in arid fringes.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume5
- Treatment
- Field bunding, deep ploughing during monsoon and straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1 after germination during wintere5
- Outcome
- grain yield and water productivitye5
- Setting
- arid fringese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Field bunding, deep ploughing during monsoon and straw mulching @ 5 t ha−1 after germination during winter is recommended for increased chickpea grain yield and water productivity through in-situ rainwater conservation practices in arid fringes where kharif crop fails”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 papers →organic · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
organic · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
23 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.