Abstract
A decline in land and water productivity, increase in the cost of cultivation, and labor-intensive practices are affecting the cereal-based farming system in Nepal, particularly in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP). Conservation agriculture (CA) practices have been found to be the climate-, energy-, and labor-smart and sustainable agricultural production technologies. Sustainable and Resilient Farming System Intensification (SRFSI) has been working since 2014 in response to the sustainability of the cereal-based (rice–wheat and rice–maize) farming in Sunsari and Dhanusha districts of Nepal. This study was conducted to assess the adoption and scaling up of CA in addition to input usage, production, net profit, benefit to cost (B:C) ratio, and labor use of CA practice on average scale land holdings in Sunsari district. The study employed structured questionnaires and key informant surveys as the main data collection tools and project reports were used as secondary data. Results revealed that farmers had several tangible advantages: lower labor utilization per area (71 people day−1 ha−1 as compared to 106 for conventional), lower input cost (NRs. 78,395 ha−1 as compared to 102,727 ha−1), less irrigation with regards to ponding time (50%) as compared to conventional practice, and higher crop productivity (8.11 t ha−1 as compared to 8.08 t ha−1 in rice–wheat and 13.1 t ha−1 as compared to 11.75 t ha−1 in conventional rice–maize) farming system through the adoption of CA practices. This study assessed the potential of CA-based practices in a cereal-based cropping system to improve the yields and net profit for sustainability.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture reduced labour use per area in the cereal-based system compared with conventional practice.
Verbatim
t0“Is conservation agriculture a potential option for cereal-based sustainable farming system in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of Nepal?”
e1“lower labor utilization per area (71 people day−1 ha−1 as compared to 106 for conventional)”
e2“through the adoption of CA practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture reduced input cost compared with conventional practice.
Verbatim
t0“Is conservation agriculture a potential option for cereal-based sustainable farming system in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of Nepal?”
e1“lower labor utilization per area (71 people day−1 ha−1 as compared to 106 for conventional)”
e2“through the adoption of CA practices”
e3“lower input cost (NRs. 78,395 ha−1 as compared to 102,727 ha−1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture reduced irrigation with regard to ponding time by 50% compared with conventional practice.
Verbatim
t0“Is conservation agriculture a potential option for cereal-based sustainable farming system in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of Nepal?”
e2“through the adoption of CA practices”
e4“less irrigation with regards to ponding time (50%) as compared to conventional practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture in rice–wheat gave higher crop productivity (8.11 t/ha versus 8.08 t/ha).
- Taxon
- rice–wheat
Oryza sativa
Triticum aestivume5 - Treatment
- adoption of CA practicese2
- Outcome
- crop productivitye5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 8.11 t ha−1e5
- Qualifier
- as compared to 8.08 t ha−1e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Is conservation agriculture a potential option for cereal-based sustainable farming system in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of Nepal?”
e2“through the adoption of CA practices”
e5“higher crop productivity (8.11 t ha−1 as compared to 8.08 t ha−1 in rice–wheat and 13.1 t ha−1 as compared to 11.75 t ha−1 in conventional rice–maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture in rice–maize gave higher crop productivity (13.1 t/ha versus 11.75 t/ha in conventional rice–maize).
- Taxon
- rice–maizeOryza sativa
Zea mayse5 - Treatment
- adoption of CA practicese2
- Outcome
- crop productivitye5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 13.1 t ha−1e5
- Qualifier
- as compared to 11.75 t ha−1e5
- Comparator
- conventionale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Is conservation agriculture a potential option for cereal-based sustainable farming system in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of Nepal?”
e2“through the adoption of CA practices”
e5“higher crop productivity (8.11 t ha−1 as compared to 8.08 t ha−1 in rice–wheat and 13.1 t ha−1 as compared to 11.75 t ha−1 in conventional rice–maize”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
586 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 27 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
725 papers more in this group
See all 729 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 →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.