Paper · 2014

PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING IN NORTH EASTERN REGION OF BANGLADESH

Md Rayhan Shaheb; Mahmudul Islam Nazrul; Md. Ataur Rahman

9
claims
20
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Soil acidification threatens dry land crop production in the soils of entire Sylhet region in Bangladesh. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of lime doses with agroeconomic performances of wheat varieties to lower soil acidity and increase wheat production in a direct-seeded system. Field trail was carried out at Eastern Surma Kushiara Flood Plain soil (AEZ 20) of Sylhet in the three consecutive years of 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. Treatments of wheat varieties (Bijoy, Prodip, Sufi, BARI Gom-25 and BARI Gom-26) and lime (0 and 1.5 tha -1 ) arranged in a split-plot design. Lime was applied in main plots and varieties are distributed randomly in sub plots. Soil was sampled in November 2010 to assess pH and Low pH was evident at the depth of fertilizer placement (0-30 cm). Broadcast lime increased pH up to 6.0 in 2013. The result revealed that most of the yield component viz. spikes m -2 , thousand grain weight and grain yield of wheat was significantly influenced by liming. There were variations in lime response among the wheat varieties. Results observed that all the varieties performed well in the liming plot (3.39-4.09 tha -1 ) and BARI Gom-26 produced the maximum yield (4.09 tha -1 ) among them compare to non liming one (2.48-2.97 tha -1 ). Cost benefit analysis indicated that the highest BCR was recorded in BARI Gom-26 in the liming plot that was 24% more compared to non liming plot. However, the index of relative adaptability of wheat was the maximum in BARI Gom-26 and it could be cultivated at acidic soil in Sylhet, Bangladesh.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low pH was evident at the depth of fertilizer placement (0-30 cm) on the acidic field soil.

Outcome
pHe1
Qualifier
0-30 cme1

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e1

“Low pH was evident at the depth of fertilizer placement (0-30 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 722–787 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Broadcast lime increased soil pH up to 6.0 in 2013.

Treatment
Broadcast limee2
Outcome
pHe2
Direction
increasede2
Value
6.0e2

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e2

“Broadcast lime increased pH up to 6.0 in 2013”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–834 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming significantly influenced most yield components of wheat, namely spikes m-2, thousand grain weight and grain yield.

Treatment
liminge3
Outcome
spikes m -2 , thousand grain weight and grain yielde3
Qualifier
most of the yield componente3

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e3

“The result revealed that most of the yield component viz. spikes m -2 , thousand grain weight and grain yield of wheat was significantly influenced by liming”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 836–993 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

There were variations in lime response among the wheat varieties.

Material
wheat varietiese4
Treatment
limee4
Outcome
lime responsee4

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e4

“There were variations in lime response among the wheat varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 995–1059 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All wheat varieties performed well in the liming plot, with yields of 3.39-4.09 t/ha, higher than in the non-liming plot.

Treatment
liming plote5
Outcome
performed welle5
Direction
higherinferrede5
Value
3.39-4.09 tha -1e5
Qualifier
2.48-2.97 tha -1e6
Comparator
non liming onee6

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e5

“all the varieties performed well in the liming plot (3.39-4.09 tha -1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1154 · show in text ↑
e6

“non liming one (2.48-2.97 tha -1 )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1235–1269 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BARI Gom-26 produced the maximum yield of 4.09 t/ha among the wheat varieties.

Material
BARI Gom-26e7
Outcome
yielde7
Direction
maximume7
Value
4.09 tha -1e7
Comparator
among theme7

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e7

“BARI Gom-26 produced the maximum yield (4.09 tha -1 ) among them”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1223 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest benefit-cost ratio was recorded for BARI Gom-26 in the liming plot, 24% more than in the non-liming plot.

Material
BARI Gom-26e7
Treatment
liming plote7
Outcome
BCRe7
Direction
higheste7
Value
24%e7
Comparator
non liming plote7

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e7

“Cost benefit analysis indicated that the highest BCR was recorded in BARI Gom-26 in the liming plot that was 24% more compared to non liming plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1271–1416 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BARI Gom-26 had the maximum index of relative adaptability among the wheat varieties.

Material
BARI Gom-26e7
Outcome
index of relative adaptabilitye7
Direction
maximume7

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e7

“the index of relative adaptability of wheat was the maximum in BARI Gom-26”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1427–1501 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

BARI Gom-26 could be cultivated at acidic soil in Sylhet, Bangladesh.

Material
BARI Gom-26e7
Outcome
cultivated at acidic soile6
Setting
Sylhet, Bangladeshe6

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ECONOMICS OF WHEAT AS INFLUENCED BY LIMING”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–67 · show in text ↑
e7

“the index of relative adaptability of wheat was the maximum in BARI Gom-26”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1427–1501 · show in text ↑
e6

“it could be cultivated at acidic soil in Sylhet, Bangladesh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1506–1565 · show in text ↑

transplanting · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

lime · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 30 positive, 1 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

lime · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

173 papers: 140 positive, 33 negative or no effect

139 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

169 papers more in this group

See all 173 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.