Abstract
Field experiments were conducted in the research farm of Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi during Kharif (2010–2012) to evaluate the effect of tillage, planting method and residue management on energy relations and economics in vegetable cowpea production. Total energy input was found to be maximum in conventional tillage (CT) (17332 MJ/ha) followed by reduced tillage (RT) (16399 MJ/ha) and zero tillage (ZT) (14535 MJ/ha). The energy output under bed planting (BP) and residue incorporation (RI) was significantly higher by 19% and 10% over flat planting (FP) and residue removal (RR) treatments, respectively. The energy use efficiency was significantly highest in ZT (6.54) and lowest in CT (4.39). Tillage had a significant effect on energy productivity and highest energy productivity of 1.33 kg/MJ was obtained under ZT. The cost of cultivation in ZT and RT was lower by 34% and 8%, respectively than CT. Among the planting methods, the cost of cultivation was higher in bed planting (INR 26639/ha) as compared to flat planting (INR 25227/ha). Higher benefit cost (B: C) ratio was recorded in ZT (2.02) followed by RT (1.07) and CT (0.86). B: C ratio was also significantly higher under BP (1.42) and RI (1.40) as compared to FP (1.21) and RR (1.23). The study revealed that resource conservation technologies like zero tillage, bed planting and residue management can form a viable option in vegetable cowpea production system for attaining higher energy use efficiency and profitability.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage energy input was 16399 MJ/ha.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatat0 - Treatment
- reduced tillage (RT)e0
- Outcome
- energy inpute1
- Value
- 16399 MJ/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“followed by reduced tillage (RT) (16399 MJ/ha)”
t0“cowpea”
e1“Total energy input was found to be maximum in conventional tillage (CT) (17332 MJ/ha) followed by reduced tillage (RT) (16399 MJ/ha) and zero tillage (ZT) (14535 MJ/ha).”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage energy input was 14535 MJ/ha.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- zero tillage (ZT)e0
- Outcome
- energy inpute1
- Value
- 14535 MJ/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage (ZT) (14535 MJ/ha)”
t0“cowpea”
e1“Total energy input was found to be maximum in conventional tillage (CT) (17332 MJ/ha) followed by reduced tillage (RT) (16399 MJ/ha) and zero tillage (ZT) (14535 MJ/ha).”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting increased energy output by 19% over flat planting.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- bed planting (BP)e0
- Outcome
- energy outpute0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Comparator
- flat planting (FP)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy output under bed planting (BP) and residue incorporation (RI) was significantly higher by 19% and 10% over flat planting (FP) and residue removal (RR) treatments, respectively.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue incorporation increased energy output by 10% over removal.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- residue incorporation (RI)e0
- Outcome
- energy outpute0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10%e0
- Comparator
- residue removal (RR)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy output under bed planting (BP) and residue incorporation (RI) was significantly higher by 19% and 10% over flat planting (FP) and residue removal (RR) treatments, respectively.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use efficiency was highest with zero tillage at 6.54.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- energy use efficiencye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 6.54e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy use efficiency was significantly highest in ZT (6.54) and lowest in CT (4.39).”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use efficiency was lowest with conventional tillage at 4.39.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- energy use efficiencye0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 4.39e0
- Comparator
- ZTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy use efficiency was significantly highest in ZT (6.54) and lowest in CT (4.39).”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage had the highest energy productivity of 1.33 kg/MJ.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- energy productivitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.33 kg/MJe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tillage had a significant effect on energy productivity and highest energy productivity of 1.33 kg/MJ was obtained under ZT.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage lowered cultivation cost by 34% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- cost of cultivatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 34%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cost of cultivation in ZT and RT was lower by 34% and 8%, respectively than CT.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage lowered cultivation cost by 8% relative to conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- cost of cultivatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 8%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cost of cultivation in ZT and RT was lower by 34% and 8%, respectively than CT.”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting cost INR 26639/ha, higher than flat planting.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- cost of cultivatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- INR 26639/hae0
- Qualifier
- INR 25227/hae0
- Comparator
- flat plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the planting methods, the cost of cultivation was higher in bed planting (INR 26639/ha) as compared to flat planting (INR 25227/ha).”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage had the highest benefit cost ratio, 2.02.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- benefit cost (B: C) ratioe0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Value
- 2.02e0
- Comparator
- RTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher benefit cost (B: C) ratio was recorded in ZT (2.02) followed by RT (1.07) and CT (0.86).”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage benefit cost ratio was 1.07.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- RTe0
- Outcome
- B: Ce1
- Value
- 1.07e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RT (1.07)”
t0“cowpea”
e1“Higher benefit cost (B: C) ratio was recorded in ZT (2.02) followed by RT (1.07) and CT (0.86).”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage benefit cost ratio was 0.86.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- B: Ce1
- Value
- 0.86e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT (0.86)”
t0“cowpea”
e1“Higher benefit cost (B: C) ratio was recorded in ZT (2.02) followed by RT (1.07) and CT (0.86).”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting increased benefit cost ratio to 1.42 versus flat planting.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- BPe0
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.42e0
- Qualifier
- 1.21e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“B: C ratio was also significantly higher under BP (1.42) and RI (1.40) as compared to FP (1.21) and RR (1.23).”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue incorporation increased benefit cost ratio to 1.40 versus removal.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- RIe0
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.40e0
- Qualifier
- 1.23e0
- Comparator
- RRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“B: C ratio was also significantly higher under BP (1.42) and RI (1.40) as compared to FP (1.21) and RR (1.23).”
t0“cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend zero tillage, bed planting and residue management for energy efficiency and profitability.
Verbatim
e0“resource conservation technologies like zero tillage, bed planting and residue management can form a viable option in vegetable cowpea production system for attaining higher energy use efficiency and profitability.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →organic · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.