Abstract
A field experiment with differenttillage practices and land configurations in cottonmaize cropping systems was conducted at TNAU, Coimbatoreduring 2011-12 and 2012-13. Totally there were 8 treatments which were replicated thrice in a Randomized Block Design.The treatments consisted of three tillage practices viz., conventional tillage, reduced tillageand zero tillage and three types of land configurations viz., flat bed and furrow irrigated raised bed (FIRB) which were compared with the existing practice of ridges and furrows. The result of two cropping cycles revealed that the growth parameters and seed cotton yield of cotton were higher in the reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB which was on par with conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on ridges and furrows (existing practice as check), conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB, reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB and reduced tillage once to cotton alone and planting on FIRB. In maize, better growth, improved yield parameters and higher yield were recorded in the reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB.The lowest yield of cotton and maize was recorded in the zero tillage to both the crops and planting on flat bed. In the cotton-maize system, cotton equivalent yield (CEY) was almost similar in reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB (4784 kg/ha), existing practice of conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting in ridges and furrows (4755 kg/ha) and conventional tillage to cotton alone and planting both cotton and maize on the FIRB (4750 kg/ha).
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
Reduced tillage with FIRB gave higher cotton growth parameters.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRBe0
- Outcome
- growth parameterse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the growth parameters and seed cotton yield of cotton were higher in the reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage with FIRB gave higher seed cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRBe0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the growth parameters and seed cotton yield of cotton were higher in the reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage with FIRB improved maize growth, yield parameters and yield.
- Treatment
- reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRBe0
- Outcome
- growth, improved yield parameters and higher yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In maize, better growth, improved yield parameters and higher yield were recorded in the reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with flat beds gave the lowest cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- zero tillage to both the crops and planting on flat bede0
- Outcome
- yield of cottone0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest yield of cotton and maize was recorded in the zero tillage to both the crops and planting on flat bed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with flat beds gave the lowest maize yield.
- Treatment
- zero tillage to both the crops and planting on flat bede0
- Outcome
- yield of cotton and maizee0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest yield of cotton and maize was recorded in the zero tillage to both the crops and planting on flat bed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage of both crops with FIRB gave cotton equivalent yield of 4784 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRBe0
- Outcome
- cotton equivalent yield (CEY)e1
- Value
- 4784 kg/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced tillage to both cotton and maize and planting on FIRB (4784 kg/ha)”
e1“cotton equivalent yield (CEY) was almost similar”
t0“cotton -maize cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage of both crops with ridges and furrows gave cotton equivalent yield of 4755 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting in ridges and furrowse0
- Outcome
- yieldt0
- Value
- 4755 kg/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional tillage to both cotton and maize and planting in ridges and furrows (4755 kg/ha)”
t0“yield of cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage of cotton with FIRB for both crops gave cotton equivalent yield of 4750 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- conventional tillage to cotton alone and planting both cotton and maize on the FIRBe0
- Outcome
- yieldt0
- Value
- 4750 kg/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional tillage to cotton alone and planting both cotton and maize on the FIRB (4750 kg/ha)”
t0“yield of cotton”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Gossypium hirsutum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Zea mays · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
tillage · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →irrigation · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
140 papers more in this group
See all 144 papers →tillage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
155 papers more in this group
See all 159 papers →irrigation · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
303 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
395 papers more in this group
See all 399 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →8 of 9 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.