Abstract
Field study was conducted at Crop Research Centre of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agri. & Tech. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh during 2014-16 in a split plot design having three replications. Six land configuration systems B1- 75 cm bed, 2 rows (B75–2); B2-, 75 cm bed, 3 rows (B75–3); B3- 90 cm bed, 2 rows (B90–2); B4- 90 cm bed, 3 rows (B90–3), B5- 90 cm bed, 4 rows (B90–4); B6- Flat planting , rows 22.5 cm apart were laid out in main plots whereas the subplots were three irrigation schedule practices such as I1- 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8; I2- 5 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 1.0; I3- 6 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 1.2. The objective of the study was to examine the treatment effects on water productivity, yield and profitability of wheat crop. Results showed that the grain yield (46.52; 47.63 and 44.01 and 44.88 q ha-1), straw (60.57; 61.55 and 59.94; 102.75 q ha-1) biological yield (107.09; 109.40 and 102.75; 104.82 q ha-1) and harvest index (43.39; 43.49 and 42.53; 42.77) were significantly higher in B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 during both the year of study. Physiological traits, yield attributes and yields were significantly influenced by land configuration and irrigation practices. In land configuration systems, B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 1.2 displayed significantly higher water use efficiency (2.53; 2.51 and 2.19; 2.18 kg m-3) compared with other treatments. However irrigation schedules × land configuration interaction was significant for yield attributes grain, straw and biological yield. The higher net return of Rs. 57805 and Rs. 61363ha-1 and B: C ratio 2.08 and 2.14 registered in B90-4 treatment. As well as irrigation schedule with IW/CPE 0.8 (I1) recorded more net return Rs.53762 and Rs. 57059 ha-1 and B: C ratio 1.89 and 1.94 than other treatments. The crop planted on 90 cm beds with 4 rows on the top of the bed and IW/CPE 0.8 is important in the Typic Ustochrept soil to achieve sustainable increase in wheat production to meet future demand while conserving natural resources, especially irrigation water and reducing the negative effects on the environment.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 gave significantly higher grain yield.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 46.52; 47.63 and 44.01 and 44.88 q ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“the grain yield (46.52; 47.63 and 44.01 and 44.88 q ha-1), straw (60.57; 61.55 and 59.94; 102.75 q ha-1) biological yield (107.09; 109.40 and 102.75; 104.82 q ha-1) and harvest index (43.39; 43.49 and 42.53; 42.77) were significantly higher in B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 during both the year of study.”
Claim · model-written summary
B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 gave significantly higher straw yield.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8e0
- Outcome
- strawe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 60.57; 61.55 and 59.94; 102.75 q ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“the grain yield (46.52; 47.63 and 44.01 and 44.88 q ha-1), straw (60.57; 61.55 and 59.94; 102.75 q ha-1) biological yield (107.09; 109.40 and 102.75; 104.82 q ha-1) and harvest index (43.39; 43.49 and 42.53; 42.77) were significantly higher in B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 during both the year of study.”
Claim · model-written summary
B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 gave significantly higher biological yield.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8e0
- Outcome
- biological yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 107.09; 109.40 and 102.75; 104.82 q ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“the grain yield (46.52; 47.63 and 44.01 and 44.88 q ha-1), straw (60.57; 61.55 and 59.94; 102.75 q ha-1) biological yield (107.09; 109.40 and 102.75; 104.82 q ha-1) and harvest index (43.39; 43.49 and 42.53; 42.77) were significantly higher in B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 during both the year of study.”
Claim · model-written summary
B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 gave significantly higher harvest index.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8e0
- Outcome
- harvest indexe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 43.39; 43.49 and 42.53; 42.77e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“the grain yield (46.52; 47.63 and 44.01 and 44.88 q ha-1), straw (60.57; 61.55 and 59.94; 102.75 q ha-1) biological yield (107.09; 109.40 and 102.75; 104.82 q ha-1) and harvest index (43.39; 43.49 and 42.53; 42.77) were significantly higher in B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 0.8 during both the year of study.”
Claim · model-written summary
B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 1.2 had higher water-use efficiency than other treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 1.2e0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.53; 2.51 and 2.19; 2.18 kg m-3e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“B90–4 and 4 cm irrigation at IW/CPE 1.2 displayed significantly higher water use efficiency (2.53; 2.51 and 2.19; 2.18 kg m-3) compared with other treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
The irrigation-schedule by land-configuration interaction significantly affected grain, straw and biological yield attributes.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation schedules × land configuratione0
- Outcome
- yield attributes grain, straw and biological yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“irrigation schedules × land configuration interaction was significant for yield attributes grain, straw and biological yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
B90-4 registered net returns of Rs. 57805 and Rs. 61363ha-1.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- B90-4 treatmente0
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- Rs. 57805 and Rs. 61363ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“The higher net return of Rs. 57805 and Rs. 61363ha-1 and B: C ratio 2.08 and 2.14 registered in B90-4 treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
B90-4 registered benefit–cost ratios of 2.08 and 2.14.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- B90-4 treatmente0
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Value
- 2.08 and 2.14e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“The higher net return of Rs. 57805 and Rs. 61363ha-1 and B: C ratio 2.08 and 2.14 registered in B90-4 treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
IW/CPE 0.8 yielded greater net returns than other irrigation schedules.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- IW/CPE 0.8 (I1)e0
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- Rs.53762 and Rs. 57059 ha-1e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“irrigation schedule with IW/CPE 0.8 (I1) recorded more net return Rs.53762 and Rs. 57059 ha-1 and B: C ratio 1.89 and 1.94 than other treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
IW/CPE 0.8 yielded benefit–cost ratios of 1.89 and 1.94, above other treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- IW/CPE 0.8 (I1)e0
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 1.89 and 1.94e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat (Triticum aestiuvm L)”
e0“irrigation schedule with IW/CPE 0.8 (I1) recorded more net return Rs.53762 and Rs. 57059 ha-1 and B: C ratio 1.89 and 1.94 than other treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 90 cm beds with four rows and IW/CPE 0.8 for sustainable wheat production with water conservation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- 90 cm beds with 4 rows on the top of the bed and IW/CPE 0.8e0
- Outcome
- sustainable increase in wheat productione0
- Setting
- Typic Ustochrept soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The crop planted on 90 cm beds with 4 rows on the top of the bed and IW/CPE 0.8 is important in the Typic Ustochrept soil to achieve sustainable increase in wheat production to meet future demand while conserving natural resources, especially irrigation water and reducing the negative effects on the environment.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
299 papers more in this group
See all 303 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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.