Abstract
The Present Study Was Undertaken In Two Villages Tentuli And Talachampei Of Keonjhar District Of Odisha Which Come Under The Central North Plateau Zone. This Zone Is Characterized By Hilly Upland Area With Reduced Moisture Holding Capacity. There forean Attempt Has Been Made To study The Various Soil And Water Conservation Practices On Cost And Return Of Crop Production,To Identify Factors Affecting Yield Of Crops With Different Treatments And To Study The Farmer’s Perception Of Conservation Agriculture Production System. For This Study 18 Marginal And 2 Small Farmers Were Selected By Employing Multistage Stratified Random Sampling Method. Five Different Trials Or Treatments Namely T1 (Traditional Practice), T2 (Conventional Tillage With HYV Maize), T3 (Conventional Tillage With Maize-Cowpea Intercropping), T4 (Minimum Tillage With Maize As Sole Crop), T5 (Minimum Tillage With Maize Cowpea Intercropping) Were Conducted In The Field. It Was Observed That T5 Gave Highest Net Return (Rs.57352.41/Ha) Followed By T2(Rs.54426.71/Ha), T3 (Rs.47376.12/Ha), T1 (Rs.46376.09/Ha). The Lowest Income Of Rs.14359.9/Ha Was Observed In Case Of T1. Fertilizer With Minimum Tillage And Intercropping Influenced Gross Income Positively And Significantly Throughsoil And Water Conservation Practice. High Yielding Variety And Line Sowing Were Two Most Influencing Factorson Crop Production. Most Profitable Treatment According To Farmer’s Perception Was T5. Lack Of Irrigation Facilities Was Important Constraint In Cultivation Practices. Farmers Should Be Trained For Adoption Of Soil And Water Conservation Practices Like Minimum Tillage, Residue Mulching, Inter-Cropping, Crop Rotation, Line Sowing And Use Of HYV Seeds For Sustainable Crop Production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage with maize-cowpea intercropping (T5) gave the highest net return among the treatments.
- Treatment
- Minimum Tillage With Maize Cowpea Intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- Net Returne1
- Direction
- Gave Higheste1
- Value
- Rs.57352.41/Hae1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“T5 Gave Highest Net Return (Rs.57352.41/Ha)”
e2“T5 (Minimum Tillage With Maize Cowpea Intercropping)”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional practice (T1) gave the lowest income among the treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The Lowest Income Of Rs.14359.9/Ha Was Observed In Case Of T1”
e2“T5 (Minimum Tillage With Maize Cowpea Intercropping)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer with minimum tillage and intercropping influenced gross income positively and significantly.
- Treatment
- Fertilizer With Minimum Tillage And Intercroppinge4
- Outcome
- Gross Incomee4
- Direction
- Positivelye4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Fertilizer With Minimum Tillage And Intercropping Influenced Gross Income Positively And Significantly”
e2“T5 (Minimum Tillage With Maize Cowpea Intercropping)”
Claim · model-written summary
High-yielding variety and line sowing were the two most influencing factors on crop production.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“High Yielding Variety And Line Sowing Were Two Most Influencing Factorson Crop Production”
e2“T5 (Minimum Tillage With Maize Cowpea Intercropping)”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna unguiculata · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- 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.