Abstract
Puddling not only alters the soil physical condition by causing sub-surface compaction and thereby reduction in soil infiltration but also results in loss of productivity of wheat crop in rice-wheat system. These provides the basis for investigating possibilities of avoiding puddling operation by direct seeding of rice. Keeping these in view, a field experiment was conducted for 2 years (2001–02 to 2002–03) to study the tillage (conventional and zero) and irrigation (four levels applied at the critical growth stages of both the crops, viz., I1 pre-sowing, I2 pre-sowing + active tillering/crown root initiation, I3 pre-sowing + active tillering/crown root initiation + panicle initiation/flowering, and I4 pre-sowing + active tillering/crown root initiation + panicle initiation/flowering + grain filling) effects on soil infiltration characteristics and water expense by direct seeded rice and wheat crop. The mean (of 2 years) water expense for rice crop under zero-tilled (ZT) plots (679 mm) was lower than that computed under conventionally-tilled (CT) plots (697 mm). Water expense for wheat under ZT plots (433 mm) was also lower than that under CT plots (446 mm). The water expense for both the crops was the lowest in the plots under I1 (632 and 366 mm for rice and wheat, respectively) and the highest in the plots under I4 (737 and 506 mm for rice and wheat, respectively) treatments. The ZT and frequently irrigated plots showed better infiltration characteristics. The initial (io), steady state infiltration rates (is) and cumulative infiltration (I) were 0.158, 0.433 and 10.83 cm h−1, respectively, in ZT soil condition and were 22, 32, and 32% higher, respectively, than the CT plots. Significantly higher io,is and I were observed under I4 treatment than those under I1 and I2 treatments. The Philip's model was found to be the best (R2 = 0.94), followed by Kostiakov's model for cumulative (R2 = 0.90) infiltration.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Rice water expense was 679 mm under zero tillage versus 697 mm under conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- zero-tilled (ZT) plotse0
- Outcome
- water expense for rice crope0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 679 mme0
- Qualifier
- 697 mme0
- Comparator
- conventionally-tilled (CT) plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water expense for rice crop under zero-tilled (ZT) plots (679 mm) was lower than that computed under conventionally-tilled (CT) plots (697 mm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat water expense was 433 mm under zero tillage versus 446 mm under conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- ZT plotse0
- Outcome
- Water expense for wheate0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 433 mme0
- Qualifier
- 446 mme0
- Comparator
- CT plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water expense for wheat under ZT plots (433 mm) was also lower than that under CT plots (446 mm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice and wheat water expense was lowest under I1 and highest under I4.
Verbatim
e0“water expense for both the crops was the lowest in the plots under I1 (632 and 366 mm for rice and wheat, respectively) and the highest in the plots under I4 (737 and 506 mm for rice and wheat, respectively)”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage and frequent irrigation improved infiltration characteristics.
- Taxon
- Rice-Wheatt0
- Treatment
- ZT and frequently irrigated plotse0
- Outcome
- infiltration characteristicse0
- Direction
- bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The ZT and frequently irrigated plots showed better infiltration characteristics”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Initial infiltration under zero tillage was 0.158 cm h−1 and 22% above conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“initial (io), steady state infiltration rates (is) and cumulative infiltration (I) were 0.158, 0.433 and 10.83 cm h−1, respectively, in ZT soil condition and were 22, 32, and 32% higher, respectively, than the CT plots”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Steady state infiltration under zero tillage was 0.433 cm h−1 and 32% above conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“steady state infiltration rates (is) and cumulative infiltration (I) were 0.158, 0.433 and 10.83 cm h−1, respectively, in ZT soil condition and were 22, 32, and 32% higher, respectively, than the CT plots”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative infiltration under zero tillage was 10.83 cm h−1 and 32% above conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“cumulative infiltration (I) were 0.158, 0.433 and 10.83 cm h−1, respectively, in ZT soil condition and were 22, 32, and 32% higher, respectively, than the CT plots”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
I4 significantly increased infiltration relative to I1 and I2.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly higher io,is and I were observed under I4 treatment than those under I1 and I2 treatments”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Philip’s model best fit cumulative infiltration with R2 = 0.94.
Verbatim
e0“The Philip's model was found to be the best (R2 = 0.94), followed by Kostiakov's model for cumulative (R2 = 0.90) infiltration”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · organism · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →tillage · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 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.