Paper · 2015 · ADVANCE RESEARCH JOURNAL OF CROP IMPROVEMENT

Application of fertilizer based on soil testing for better production of cotton

C.R. PATEL; K.K. SUTARIA; M.C. BRAHMBHATT; et al.

2
claims
4
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The field experiment was conducted on cotton during three consecutive Kharif seasons of the year 2011 to 2013 in order to develop fertilizer prescriptions for the desired yield targets with three treatments viz., farmers practice, recommended practices and soil testing based fertilizer application. For taking higher production of crop a viable approach is needed to supply the crop with nutrients that limit its production. The present study deals with this issue. In this experiment application of chemical fertilizer along with biofertilizer based on soil testing increased 15.90 per cent in economic yield than the farmers practice during all the years. The net return also showed an increase of Rs. 17732/-per ha under soil testing based fertilizer application than farmer practices during three years.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chemical fertilizer with biofertilizer based on soil testing increased cotton economic yield by 15.90% over farmers practice in all years.

Treatment
chemical fertilizer along with biofertilizer based on soil testinge1
Outcome
economic yielde1
Direction
increasede1
Value
15.90 per cente1
Qualifier
during all the yearse1
Comparator
farmers practicee1
Setting
field experimente3

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

e1

“In this experiment application of chemical fertilizer along with biofertilizer based on soil testing increased 15.90 per cent in economic yield than the farmers practice during all the years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 467–657 · show in text ↑
e3

“The field experiment was conducted on cotton during three consecutive Kharif seasons of the year 2011 to 2013”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–109 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil-testing-based fertilizer application increased cotton net return by Rs. 17732/ha over farmer practices during three years.

Treatment
soil testing based fertilizer applicatione2
Outcome
net returne2
Direction
increasee2
Value
Rs. 17732/-per hae2
Qualifier
during three yearse2
Comparator
farmer practicese2
Setting
field experimente3

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

e2

“The net return also showed an increase of Rs. 17732/-per ha under soil testing based fertilizer application than farmer practices during three years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 659–807 · show in text ↑
e3

“The field experiment was conducted on cotton during three consecutive Kharif seasons of the year 2011 to 2013”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–109 · show in text ↑

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

50 papers: 46 positive, 4 negative or no effect

45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 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.