Paper · 2011 · Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development

Effect of Pruning on Productivity and Economics of Ber (Ziziphus mauritiana)-Based Hortipasture Systems

Shri Ram; Sunil Kumar

14
claims
28
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted during 2001–02 to 2004–05 on sandy loam soil to study the effect of pruning intensities on productivity and economics of ber based hortipasture systems under semi-arid rainfed conditions. Pruning of secondary branches of ber at 20 cm length from base recorded significantly higher dry forage (4.26 t/ha) and crude protein yield (319.9 kg/ha) of pasture as compared to pruning at 60 cm length (dry forage yield 3.77 t/ha and crude protein yield 280 kg/ha). However, dry leafy forage yield, fruit yield and fuel wood (4.11, 23.41 and 36.34 kg/tree) were increased significantly when pruning of secondary branches were done at 60 cm length than 20 and 40 cm length. Among pasture combiations, intercropping of guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamata produced significantly higher dry forage (6.34 t/ha) and crude protein yield (455.3 kg/ha) compared to other grass-legume combinations. Dry leafy forage yield and fuel wood production of ber was not significantly influenced by different pasture combinations. However, significantly higher fruit yield (24.91 kg/tree) was recorded under natural pasture than other grass- legume intercropping. Pruning of secondary branches of trees at 40 cm length from base recorded maximum net returns ( 40032/ha) and net returns/ investment (2.14). Among pasture combinations, intercropping of guinea grass with S. hamata resulted in highest net returns ( 33693/ha) from ber based hortipasture systems. However, maximum net returns/ investment (1.96) was achieved under natural pasture.

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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning ber at 20 cm increased pasture dry forage yield to 4.26 t/ha versus 60 cm.

Treatment
20 cm lengthe0
Outcome
dry foragee0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.26 t/hae0
Comparator
60 cm lengthe0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pruning of secondary branches of ber at 20 cm length from base recorded significantly higher dry forage (4.26 t/ha) and crude protein yield (319.9 kg/ha) of pasture as compared to pruning at 60 cm length (dry forage yield 3.77 t/ha and crude protein yield 280 kg/ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 216–483 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning ber at 20 cm increased pasture crude protein yield to 319.9 kg/ha versus 60 cm.

Treatment
20 cm lengthe0
Outcome
crude protein yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
319.9 kg/hae0
Comparator
60 cm lengthe0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pruning of secondary branches of ber at 20 cm length from base recorded significantly higher dry forage (4.26 t/ha) and crude protein yield (319.9 kg/ha) of pasture as compared to pruning at 60 cm length (dry forage yield 3.77 t/ha and crude protein yield 280 kg/ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 216–483 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning at 60 cm significantly increased dry leafy forage yield to 4.11.

Treatment
60 cm lengthe0
Outcome
dry leafy forage yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
4.11e0
Comparator
20 and 40 cm lengthe0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, dry leafy forage yield, fruit yield and fuel wood (4.11, 23.41 and 36.34 kg/tree) were increased significantly when pruning of secondary branches were done at 60 cm length than 20 and 40 cm length.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 484–690 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning at 60 cm significantly increased fruit yield to 23.41.

Treatment
60 cm lengthe0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
23.41e0
Comparator
20 and 40 cm lengthe0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, dry leafy forage yield, fruit yield and fuel wood (4.11, 23.41 and 36.34 kg/tree) were increased significantly when pruning of secondary branches were done at 60 cm length than 20 and 40 cm length.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 484–690 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning at 60 cm significantly increased fuel wood to 36.34 kg/tree.

Treatment
60 cm lengthe0
Outcome
fuel woode0
Direction
increasede0
Value
36.34 kg/treee0
Comparator
20 and 40 cm lengthe0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, dry leafy forage yield, fruit yield and fuel wood (4.11, 23.41 and 36.34 kg/tree) were increased significantly when pruning of secondary branches were done at 60 cm length than 20 and 40 cm length.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 484–690 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamata increased dry forage to 6.34 t/ha.

Treatment
intercropping of guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamatae0
Outcome
dry foragee0
Direction
highere0
Value
6.34 t/hae0
Comparator
other grass-legume combinationse0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among pasture combiations, intercropping of guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamata produced significantly higher dry forage (6.34 t/ha) and crude protein yield (455.3 kg/ha) compared to other grass-legume combinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 691–908 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamata increased crude protein yield to 455.3 kg/ha.

Treatment
intercropping of guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamatae0
Outcome
crude protein yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
455.3 kg/hae0
Comparator
other grass-legume combinationse0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among pasture combiations, intercropping of guinea grass with Stylosanthes hamata produced significantly higher dry forage (6.34 t/ha) and crude protein yield (455.3 kg/ha) compared to other grass-legume combinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 691–908 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry leafy forage yield did not differ significantly among pasture combinations.

Treatment
different pasture combinationse0
Outcome
Dry leafy forage yielde0
Direction
not significantly influencede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dry leafy forage yield and fuel wood production of ber was not significantly influenced by different pasture combinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1031 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

fuel wood production did not differ significantly among pasture combinations.

Treatment
different pasture combinationse0
Outcome
fuel wood productione0
Direction
not significantly influencede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dry leafy forage yield and fuel wood production of ber was not significantly influenced by different pasture combinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1031 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Natural pasture yielded 24.91 kg/tree of ber fruit, higher than intercropping.

Treatment
natural pasturee0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
24.91 kg/treee0
Comparator
other grass- legume intercroppinge0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, significantly higher fruit yield (24.91 kg/tree) was recorded under natural pasture than other grass- legume intercropping.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1032–1164 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning at 40 cm produced maximum net returns of 40032/ha.

Treatment
40 cm lengthe0
Outcome
net returnse0
Direction
maximume0
Value
40032/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pruning of secondary branches of trees at 40 cm length from base recorded maximum net returns ( 40032/ha) and net returns/ investment (2.14).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1306 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning at 40 cm produced maximum net returns per investment of 2.14.

Treatment
40 cm lengthe0
Outcome
net returns/ investmente0
Direction
maximume0
Value
2.14e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pruning of secondary branches of trees at 40 cm length from base recorded maximum net returns ( 40032/ha) and net returns/ investment (2.14).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1306 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Guinea grass and S. hamata intercropping gave highest net returns of 33693/ha.

Treatment
intercropping of guinea grass with S. hamatae0
Outcome
net returnse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
33693/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among pasture combinations, intercropping of guinea grass with S. hamata resulted in highest net returns ( 33693/ha) from ber based hortipasture systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1307–1460 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Natural pasture gave maximum net returns per investment of 1.96.

Treatment
natural pasturee0
Outcome
net returns/ investmente0
Direction
maximume0
Value
1.96e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, maximum net returns/ investment (1.96) was achieved under natural pasture.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1461–1544 · show in text ↑
t0

“Ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–54 · show in text ↑

Megathyrsus maximus · yield · Ziziphus mauritiana (ber)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

intercropping · yield · Ziziphus mauritiana (ber)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.