Paper · 2013

Reponse of Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) to Identified Micronutrients Constraints under Vertisol of Malaprabha Command Area In Karnataka

Mahantesh S. Karajanagi

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A study was undertaken to identify micronutrients constraints using GIS technique in Vertisols of Dundur village under of Malaprabha Command area, Karnataka and response of chickpea crop to identified micronutrients constraints. Surface soil samples collected at 200 m grid interval were analyzed for pH, EC, CaCO3, OC, N, P, K, S, Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn and B and mapped by GIS technique. Soil fertility maps revealed that, major portion of the study area was deficient in available N, P, S, Zn, Fe and B with higher `level of available K, Cu and Mn. The results on field experiment with chickpea as test crop revealed that, application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) recorded the highest plant height, number of branches and dry matter production at all the growth stages followed by FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 10 kg ha + Borax @ 2.5 kg ha along with RDF. The yield, yield components and crude protein content were also significantly superior over all other treatments with the application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDF. Application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDF recorded significantly higher total uptake of N, P, K, S, Zn, Fe and B by chickpea. There was improvement in available Fe, Zn and B status in soil after harvest of crop due to application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha. The higher additional benefit was also realized with the application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha compared to all the other treatments.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high rate micronutrient treatment gave the highest chickpea height, branch number, and dry matter across growth stages.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
Outcome
plant height, number of branches and dry matter productione0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
at all the growth stagese0
Comparator
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 10 kg ha + Borax @ 2.5 kg ha along with RDFe0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) recorded the highest plant height, number of branches and dry matter production at all the growth stages followed by FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 10 kg ha + Borax @ 2.5 kg ha along with RDF.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 618–911 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The high rate treatment gave significantly superior yield and yield components over other treatments.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDFe0
Outcome
yield, yield componentse0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
all other treatmentse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield, yield components and crude protein content were also significantly superior over all other treatments with the application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDF.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1112 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The high rate treatment gave significantly superior crude protein content.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDFe0
Outcome
crude protein contente0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
all other treatmentse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield, yield components and crude protein content were also significantly superior over all other treatments with the application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDF.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1112 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The high rate treatment significantly raised total chickpea uptake of the listed nutrients.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDFe0
Outcome
total uptake of N, P, K, S, Zn, Fe and Be0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha along with RDF recorded significantly higher total uptake of N, P, K, S, Zn, Fe and B by chickpea.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1113–1274 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high rate treatment improved available soil Fe, Zn, and B after harvest.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg hae0
Outcome
available Fe, Zn and B status in soile0
Direction
improvemente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There was improvement in available Fe, Zn and B status in soil after harvest of crop due to application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1275–1430 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high rate treatment gave higher additional benefit than other treatments.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg hae0
Outcome
additional benefite0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
all the other treatmentse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The higher additional benefit was also realized with the application of FeSO4 + ZnSO4 each @ 25 kg ha + Borax @ 5 kg ha compared to all the other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1431–1588 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑

zinc sulfate · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

34 papers: 33 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

30 papers more in this group

See all 34 papers →

zinc sulfate · quality: protein · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

borax · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous) · quality: protein · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

borax · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous) · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

zinc sulfate · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous) · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.