Abstract
Abstract Conservation agriculture ( CA ) based on best‐bet crop management practices may increase crop and water productivity, as well as conserve and sustain soil health and natural resources. In a 2‐year study, we assessed the effects of tillage and crop establishment ( TCE ) methods on productivity, profitability and soil physical properties in a rice–wheat ( RW ) system. The six TCE treatments were used to study the impact, which are puddled transplanted rice followed by conventionally tilled wheat ( CTPR – CTW ), direct‐seeded rice on the flat followed by zero‐till wheat ( CTDSR – ZTW ), zero‐till direct‐seeded rice with residue followed by zero‐till wheat with residue ( ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R), transplanted rice after rotavator puddling followed by zero‐till wheat ( RTTPR – ZTW ), transplanted rice after rotavator puddling followed by rotary till wheat ( RTTPR – RTW ) and farmer practice rice–wheat ( FP – RW ). Result of the study revealed that mean rice yield was not significantly affected by different TCE methods. Wheat planted with ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R gave 30% larger grain yield than FP‐RW . Overall, among all the TCE treatments, the RW system yields and net returns were maximum under ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R. The fastest mean infiltration rate (0.10 cm hr –1 ) was registered in ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R plots, whereas the slowest was in FP‐RW plots (0.05 cm hr –1 ). Bulk density at 15–20 cm soil depth was least in ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R (1.70 Mg m –3 ) and greatest in FP‐RW (1.73 Mg m –3 ). Results from this study revealed that conventionally tilled ( CT ) and transplanting of rice could be successfully replaced by adoption of the profitable double ZT – RW system.
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
Rice yield did not differ significantly among tillage methods.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- different TCE methodse0
- Outcome
- mean rice yielde0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mean rice yield was not significantly affected by different TCE methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue-retained zero tillage increased wheat grain yield by 30% over farmer practice.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- ZTDSR +R– ZTW +Re0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- largere0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Comparator
- FP‐RWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Wheat planted with ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R gave 30% larger grain yield than FP‐RW”
Claim · model-written summary
The residue-retained zero tillage system had maximum rice-wheat yield and net returns.
Verbatim
e0“RW system yields and net returns were maximum under ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R”
e1“all the TCE treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Infiltration was fastest under residue-retained zero tillage, at 0.10 cm hr –1.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- mean infiltration ratee0
- Direction
- fasteste0
- Value
- 0.10 cm hr –1e0
- Setting
- ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fastest mean infiltration rate (0.10 cm hr –1 ) was registered in ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R plots”
t0“rice–wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Infiltration was slowest under farmer practice, at 0.05 cm hr –1.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- sloweste0
- Direction
- sloweste0
- Value
- 0.05 cm hr –1e0
- Setting
- FP‐RW plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“slowest was in FP‐RW plots (0.05 cm hr –1 )”
t0“rice–wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulk density was least under residue-retained zero tillage at 1.70 Mg m –3.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Bulk densitye0
- Direction
- leaste0
- Value
- 1.70 Mg m –3e0
- Qualifier
- 15–20 cm soil depthe0
- Setting
- ZTDSR +R– ZTW +Re0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bulk density at 15–20 cm soil depth was least in ZTDSR +R– ZTW +R (1.70 Mg m –3 )”
t0“rice–wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulk density was greatest under farmer practice at 1.73 Mg m –3.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- greateste0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 1.73 Mg m –3e0
- Setting
- FP‐RWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“greatest in FP‐RW (1.73 Mg m –3 )”
t0“rice–wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded conventional tillage and rice transplanting can be replaced by profitable double zero tillage.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- adoption of the profitable double ZT – RW systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventionally tilled ( CT ) and transplanting of rice could be successfully replaced by adoption of the profitable double ZT – RW system”
t0“rice–wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
141 papers in the same direction as this paper · 587 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
725 papers more in this group
See all 729 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.