Paper · 2015 · Annals of Agricultural Research

Residual soil fertility and nutrient uptake in baby corn as influenced by nutrient sources and weed control measures

Niranjan Kumar Barod; Shiva Dhar

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi to assess the effect of nutrient sources and weed control measures on nutrient uptake, yield and residual soil fertility after harvest of baby corn. The highest husked and dehusked baby cob yields (4.43 t ha–1 and 2.15 t ha–1, respectively) and green fodder yield were obtained with application of N through vermicompost and the lowest (3.30 and 1.80 t ha–1, respectively) was recorded with the application of N through fertilizer. Residual fertility in terms of available N, P and K (186.5, 18.0 and 208.2 kg ha–1) in the soil after crop harvest was significantly superior when 120 kg N ha–1 was applied through FYM in comparison with recommended dose of N applied through fertilizer and it was at par with leaf compost and vermicompost. In case of weed control measures, the highest husked and dehusked cob yield (4.29 t ha–1 and 2.18 t ha–1 respectively) and green fodder yields were found in weed free treatment and the lowest values were obtained from unweeded control (3.05 t ha–1 and 1.68 t ha–1 respectively). Available N, P, K, bulk density and organic carbon in soil was not significantly varied due to weed control measures.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Vermicompost N gave the highest husked cob yield, 4.43 t ha–1, versus fertilizer N.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
application of N through vermicomposte0
Outcome
husked and dehusked baby cob yieldse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
4.43 t ha–1e0
Comparator
application of N through fertilizere0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest husked and dehusked baby cob yields (4.43 t ha–1 and 2.15 t ha–1, respectively) and green fodder yield were obtained with application of N through vermicompost and the lowest (3.30 and 1.80 t ha–1, respectively) was recorded with the application of N through fertilizer.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 235–517 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Vermicompost N gave the highest dehusked cob yield, 2.15 t ha–1.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
application of N through vermicomposte0
Outcome
dehusked baby cob yieldse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.15 t ha–1e0
Comparator
application of N through fertilizere0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest husked and dehusked baby cob yields (4.43 t ha–1 and 2.15 t ha–1, respectively) and green fodder yield were obtained with application of N through vermicompost and the lowest (3.30 and 1.80 t ha–1, respectively) was recorded with the application of N through fertilizer.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 235–517 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Vermicompost N gave the highest green fodder yield.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
application of N through vermicomposte0
Outcome
green fodder yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
application of N through fertilizere0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest husked and dehusked baby cob yields (4.43 t ha–1 and 2.15 t ha–1, respectively) and green fodder yield were obtained with application of N through vermicompost and the lowest (3.30 and 1.80 t ha–1, respectively) was recorded with the application of N through fertilizer.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 235–517 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

FYM N gave significantly superior residual available N, P and K compared with fertilizer N, and was at par with leaf compost and vermicompost.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
120 kg N ha–1 was applied through FYMe0
Outcome
available N, P and Ke0
Direction
superiore0
Value
186.5, 18.0 and 208.2 kg ha–1e0
Comparator
recommended dose of N applied through fertilizere0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“Residual fertility in terms of available N, P and K (186.5, 18.0 and 208.2 kg ha–1) in the soil after crop harvest was significantly superior when 120 kg N ha–1 was applied through FYM in comparison with recommended dose of N applied through fertilizer and it was at par with leaf compost and vermicompost.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–824 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed free treatment yielded the highest husked cob yield, 4.29 t ha–1, versus unweeded control.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
weed free treatmente0
Outcome
husked and dehusked cob yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
4.29 t ha–1e0
Comparator
unweeded controle0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“In case of weed control measures, the highest husked and dehusked cob yield (4.29 t ha–1 and 2.18 t ha–1 respectively) and green fodder yields were found in weed free treatment and the lowest values were obtained from unweeded control (3.05 t ha–1 and 1.68 t ha–1 respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–1103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed free treatment yielded the highest dehusked cob yield, 2.18 t ha–1.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
weed free treatmente0
Outcome
dehusked cob yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.18 t ha–1e0
Comparator
unweeded controle0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“In case of weed control measures, the highest husked and dehusked cob yield (4.29 t ha–1 and 2.18 t ha–1 respectively) and green fodder yields were found in weed free treatment and the lowest values were obtained from unweeded control (3.05 t ha–1 and 1.68 t ha–1 respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–1103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed free treatment gave the highest green fodder yield.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
weed free treatmente0
Outcome
green fodder yieldse0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
unweeded controle0

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“In case of weed control measures, the highest husked and dehusked cob yield (4.29 t ha–1 and 2.18 t ha–1 respectively) and green fodder yields were found in weed free treatment and the lowest values were obtained from unweeded control (3.05 t ha–1 and 1.68 t ha–1 respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–1103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed control measures did not significantly vary soil available N, P, K, bulk density or organic carbon.

Taxon
baby cornt0
Treatment
weed control measurese0
Outcome
Available N, P, K, bulk density and organic carbon in soile0
Direction
not significantly variede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“baby corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–56 · show in text ↑
e0

“Available N, P, K, bulk density and organic carbon in soil was not significantly varied due to weed control measures.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1104–1221 · show in text ↑

herbicide · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 31 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

nitrogen · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

489 papers: 403 positive, 86 negative or no effect

402 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

485 papers more in this group

See all 489 papers →

herbicide · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

651 papers: 500 positive, 151 negative or no effect

499 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

647 papers more in this group

See all 651 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,164 papers: 1,026 positive, 138 negative or no effect

1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

1,160 papers more in this group

See all 1,164 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

2,185 papers: 1,906 positive, 279 negative or no effect

1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

2,181 papers more in this group

See all 2,185 papers →

fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

3,908 papers: 3,485 positive, 423 negative or no effect

3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

3,904 papers more in this group

See all 3,908 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.