Abstract
A field experiment was carried out during Rabi season of 2012-13 and 2013-14 at Varanasi to investigate the effects of irrigation schedules and moisture conservation practices on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The treatment combination were three irrigation schedule viz., no irrigation, one irrigation at CRI and two irrigation at tillering and flowering and six moisture conservation treatments viz., no hydrogel, 4t/ha mulch, 6 t/ha mulch, 2.5 kg hydrogel ha-1, 5.0 kg hydrogel ha-1 and 7.5 kg hydrogel ha-1 were compared with four irrigation at CRI, tillering, late jointing and milk stage as control. Application of two irrigations at tillering and flowering (I2) resulted in significant increase in CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crop than I0 (no irrigation) and I1 (one irrigation) treatments during both the years. The maximum CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crop were recorded with M6 (7.5 kg hydrogel/ha), which was significantly higher than remaining treatments at all stages but it was at par with M3 (6 t mulch/ha) and M5 (5 kg hydrogel/ha) at most of the growth stages among moisture conservation practices.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Two irrigations at tillering and flowering significantly increased CGR, RGR and leaf area index of wheat compared with no or one irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- two irrigations at tillering and flowering (I2)e1
- Outcome
- CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area indexe1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Comparator
- I0 (no irrigation) and I1 (one irrigation)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects of irrigation schedules and moisture conservation practices on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Application of two irrigations at tillering and flowering (I2) resulted in significant increase in CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crop than I0 (no irrigation) and I1 (one irrigation) treatments during both the years”
Claim · model-written summary
Two irrigations at tillering and flowering significantly increased nutrient uptake by wheat compared with no or one irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- two irrigations at tillering and flowering (I2)e1
- Outcome
- nutrient uptake by crope1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Comparator
- I0 (no irrigation) and I1 (one irrigation)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects of irrigation schedules and moisture conservation practices on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e1“Application of two irrigations at tillering and flowering (I2) resulted in significant increase in CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crop than I0 (no irrigation) and I1 (one irrigation) treatments during both the years”
Claim · model-written summary
The 7.5 kg hydrogel/ha treatment (M6) gave the maximum growth and nutrient uptake values, significantly higher than the remaining treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- M6 (7.5 kg hydrogel/ha)e2
- Outcome
- CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crope2
- Direction
- maximume2
- Comparator
- remaining treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects of irrigation schedules and moisture conservation practices on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“The maximum CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crop were recorded with M6 (7.5 kg hydrogel/ha), which was significantly higher than remaining treatments at all stages”
Claim · model-written summary
M6 (7.5 kg hydrogel/ha) was at par with M3 (6 t mulch/ha) and M5 (5 kg hydrogel/ha) at most growth stages.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- M6 (7.5 kg hydrogel/ha)e2
- Outcome
- CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crope2
- Direction
- at pare3
- Comparator
- M3 (6 t mulch/ha)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects of irrigation schedules and moisture conservation practices on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
e2“The maximum CGR (g/m2/day), RGR (g/g/day), leaf area index and nutrient uptake by crop were recorded with M6 (7.5 kg hydrogel/ha), which was significantly higher than remaining treatments at all stages”
e3“but it was at par with M3 (6 t mulch/ha) and M5 (5 kg hydrogel/ha) at most of the growth stages among moisture conservation practices”
The same questions in other papers
stage · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →stage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
73 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →other · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
99 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
110 papers more in this group
See all 114 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
118 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
141 papers more in this group
See all 145 papers →irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 papers →tillage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 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.