Abstract
A field experiment was carried out during kharif season of 2016 at Research farm of Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur (Bihar) to study the “Effect of nutrient management on nutrient uptake and economics of maize (Zea mays L.) under different tillage practices”. The experiment was laid out in split plot design with three replications. Main plot consist of three different tillage practices viz., a) Zero tillage (ZT) b) Conventional tillage (CT) and c) Bed planting (BP) and sub-plot comprised of four different level of nutrient management viz., a) Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) (120, 60 and 50 kg/ha N, P2O5 and K2O) b) Site Specific Nutrient Management (SSNM) based on nutrient expert and c) Farmers practice (FP) (150% of RDF + 10 ton FYM). Among the different tillage practices, bed planting recorded significantly higher gross returns (1,06,396 Rs/ha), net returns (64,111 Rs/ha) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of the tillage practices. Among the different nutrient management practices, SSNM recorded significantly higher net returns (63,523 Rs/ha), B: C ratio (1.89) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of nutrient management practices.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting produced significantly higher gross returns than other tillage practices.
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- gross returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1,06,396 Rs/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of the tillage practicese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different tillage practices, bed planting recorded significantly higher gross returns (1,06,396 Rs/ha), net returns (64,111 Rs/ha) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of the tillage practices.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting produced significantly higher net returns than other tillage practices.
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 64,111 Rs/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of the tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different tillage practices, bed planting recorded significantly higher gross returns (1,06,396 Rs/ha), net returns (64,111 Rs/ha) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of the tillage practices.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting gave significantly higher total available N, P, K, Fe and Zn uptake than other tillage practices.
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- rest of the tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different tillage practices, bed planting recorded significantly higher gross returns (1,06,396 Rs/ha), net returns (64,111 Rs/ha) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of the tillage practices.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM produced significantly higher net returns than other nutrient management practices.
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 63,523 Rs/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of nutrient management practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different nutrient management practices, SSNM recorded significantly higher net returns (63,523 Rs/ha), B: C ratio (1.89) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of nutrient management practices.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM produced a significantly higher benefit to cost ratio than other nutrient management practices.
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.89e0
- Comparator
- rest of nutrient management practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different nutrient management practices, SSNM recorded significantly higher net returns (63,523 Rs/ha), B: C ratio (1.89) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of nutrient management practices.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM gave significantly higher total available N, P, K, Fe and Zn uptake than other nutrient management practices.
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- rest of nutrient management practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the different nutrient management practices, SSNM recorded significantly higher net returns (63,523 Rs/ha), B: C ratio (1.89) and total available nutrient uptake (N, P, K Fe and Zn) over rest of nutrient management practices.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →climate site · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 73 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 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.