Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during kharif, 2008–09 and 2009–10 at the Experimental Farm of the Regional Research Station and Faculty of Agriculture, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir to study the relative performance of resource conservation technologies in maize based cropping system. Four different tillage methods viz; conventional tillage, minimum tillage, zero tillage and bed planting were used in the main plots along with two sub plot treatments viz; no mulch and straw mulch. Based on the findings of experimentations, higher yield attributes and grain yield of maize were obtained in conventional tillage which was at par to bed planting. Similar trend was observed in the succeeding crops of maize based cropping system during both the years. The yield under conventional tillage was about 19.6% higher than zero tillage. Zero tillage and minimum tillage were found at par. Mulching with paddy straw significantly increased the grain yield of maize by about 14.4%. Significantly lowest total weed density and dry matter accumulation were recorded in conventional tillage than minimum and zero tillage. Conventional tillage recorded the lowest depletion of nutrients in weeds and minimum B:C ratio among tillage practices. Straw mulch recorded the significantly highest net returns and B:C ratio than the no mulch treatment.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave higher maize yield attributes and grain yield, at par with bed planting.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- yield attributes and grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- bed plantinge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher yield attributes and grain yield of maize were obtained in conventional tillage which was at par to bed planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Succeeding crops followed a similar yield pattern across tillage methods in both years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar trend was observed in the succeeding crops of maize based cropping system during both the years”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage yield was about 19.6% higher than zero tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield under conventional tillage was about 19.6% higher than zero tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage and minimum tillage performed at par.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zero tillage and minimum tillage were found at par”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Paddy straw mulch significantly increased maize grain yield by about 14.4%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mulching with paddy straw significantly increased the grain yield of maize by about 14.4%”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had significantly lower total weed density than minimum and zero tillage.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- total weed densitye0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- minimum and zero tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly lowest total weed density and dry matter accumulation were recorded in conventional tillage than minimum and zero tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had significantly lower weed dry matter accumulation than minimum and zero tillage.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- minimum and zero tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly lowest total weed density and dry matter accumulation were recorded in conventional tillage than minimum and zero tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had the lowest nutrient depletion in weeds.
- Treatment
- Conventional tillagee0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- depletion of nutrients in weedse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage recorded the lowest depletion of nutrients in weeds”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage had the minimum benefit-cost ratio among tillage practices.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional tillage recorded the lowest depletion of nutrients in weeds and minimum B:C ratio among tillage practices”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch significantly produced the highest net returns versus no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw mulch recorded the significantly highest net returns and B:C ratio than the no mulch treatment”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch significantly produced the highest benefit-cost ratio versus no mulch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw mulch recorded the significantly highest net returns and B:C ratio than the no mulch treatment”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
107 papers more in this group
See all 111 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 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
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.