Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at farmers’ field in Chitwan, Nepal during May-July 2012 to evaluate the effect of tillage and different doses of FYM on yield of maize crop and soil properties. The experiment was laid out in two factorial randomized complete block design with 3 different tillage (dibbling, stripe tillage and conventional tillage) and 4 different doses of FYM (2 Mg ha-1, 5 Mg ha-1, 10 Mg ha-1 and 20 Mg ha-1) allocated in three replications. The results revealed that dibbling is favorable for soil moisture and residual soil N conservation. Higher FYM level supported to increase residual nutrients (OM and NPK) holding. Tillage did not affect grain and straw yield significantly. But the higher level of FYM yielded the higher grain yield. Benefit-Cost ratio of maize cultivation was found to be higher in reduced tillage methods with FYM 5 Mg ha-1 compared to the control (chemical source NPK @ 120:60:40) and FYM 15 Mg ha-1. Dibbling found to be more beneficial for crop yield, nutrient uptake and soil physical properties. Application of FYM 5-10 Mg ha-1 was found to be most cost effective regarding the economical benefit. Hence reduced tillage with FYM 5-10 Mg ha-1 contribute to minimize the soil degradation in mid-hills of Nepal with higher soil nutrients conservation and economic return from maize farming compared to existing conventional system of maize farming.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Dibbling was favourable for soil moisture and residual soil N conservation in the maize experiment.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e0“dibbling is favorable for soil moisture and residual soil N conservation”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher FYM levels increased residual soil nutrients (OM and NPK) holding.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e1“Higher FYM level supported to increase residual nutrients (OM and NPK) holding”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not significantly affect grain and straw yield of maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e2“Tillage did not affect grain and straw yield significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
A higher level of FYM gave higher maize grain yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e3“the higher level of FYM yielded the higher grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The benefit-cost ratio of maize cultivation was higher in reduced tillage methods with FYM 5 Mg ha-1 than in the control (chemical NPK) and FYM 15 Mg ha-1.
- Treatment
- reduced tillage methods with FYM 5 Mg ha-1e4
- Outcome
- Benefit-Cost ratioe4
- Direction
- highere4
- Qualifier
- chemical source NPK @ 120:60:40e4
- Comparator
- the controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e4“Benefit-Cost ratio of maize cultivation was found to be higher in reduced tillage methods with FYM 5 Mg ha-1 compared to the control (chemical source NPK @ 120:60:40) and FYM 15 Mg ha-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Dibbling was found more beneficial for crop yield, nutrient uptake and soil physical properties.
- Treatment
- Dibblinge5
- Outcome
- crop yield, nutrient uptake and soil physical propertiese5
- Direction
- more beneficiale5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e5“Dibbling found to be more beneficial for crop yield, nutrient uptake and soil physical properties”
Claim · model-written summary
Application of FYM 5-10 Mg ha-1 was found most cost effective in terms of economic benefit.
- Outcome
- most cost effectivee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize production”
e6“Application of FYM 5-10 Mg ha-1 was found to be most cost effective regarding the economical benefit”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that reduced tillage with FYM 5-10 Mg ha-1 helps minimise soil degradation in the mid-hills of Nepal, with higher soil nutrient conservation and economic return from maize farming.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“reduced tillage with FYM 5-10 Mg ha-1 contribute to minimize the soil degradation in mid-hills of Nepal with higher soil nutrients conservation and economic return from maize farming”
The same questions in other 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 · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 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.