Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during Kharif 2015 at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana to study the effect of three planting methods (flat, ridge and bed) and five nitrogen levels (0, 90, 120, 150 and 180 kg ha -1 ) on economic returns, nutrients status and nitrogen uptake in Kharif maize. Among various planting methods, bed planting produced significantly higher gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio as compared to flat sowing method but it was statistically at par with ridge sowing method. The gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio were increased with increase in each level of nitrogen upto 180 kg N ha -1 , however, the significant response was only observed upto 150 kg N ha -1 . Maximum nitrogen uptake of 115.3 kg ha -1 in grains and 40.4 kg ha -1 in stover was observed under bed planting which was at par with ridge sowing method but significantly higher than flat sowing method. Application of 150 kg N ha -1 recorded significantly higher nitrogen uptake in grains and stover over control, 90 kg N ha -1 and 120 kg N ha -1 but was at par with 180 kg N ha -1 . Available nitrogen status in soil after harvesting of maize was not significantly affected by different planting methods. Maximum available nitrogen status in soil (146.8 kg ha -1 ) was recorded after the application of 180 kg N ha -1 to maize which was significantly higher than control (105.7), 90 kg N ha -1 (122.0 kg ha -1 ) and 120 kg N ha -1 (135.3 kg ha -1 ) but was at par with 150 kg N ha -1 (141.2 kg ha -1 ) at depth of 0-15 cm. Different planting methods and nitrogen levels did not significantly influence the plant stand and available phosphorus and potassium status in soil after harvesting of maize. So, it may be concluded that for getting higher gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio, maize may be grown on beds with application of 150 kg N ha -1 .
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting gave significantly higher gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio than flat sowing.
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- flat sowing methode0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bed planting produced significantly higher gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio as compared to flat sowing method”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting returns were statistically at par with ridge sowing.
- Treatment
- bed plantingt1
- Outcome
- gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratiot1
- Direction
- at pare0
- Comparator
- ridge sowing methode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was statistically at par with ridge sowing method.”
t0“maize”
t1“bed planting produced significantly higher gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
Gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio increased with nitrogen rates up to 180 kg N ha -1, with significant response only up to 150 kg N ha -1.
- Treatment
- nitrogen upto 180 kg N ha -1e0
- Outcome
- gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratioe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- significant response was only observed upto 150 kg N ha -1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio were increased with increase in each level of nitrogen upto 180 kg N ha -1 , however, the significant response was only observed upto 150 kg N ha -1 .”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting produced maximum grain nitrogen uptake of 115.3 kg ha -1.
- Organ / stage
- grainse0
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptakee0
- Direction
- Maximume0
- Value
- 115.3 kg ha -1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum nitrogen uptake of 115.3 kg ha -1 in grains and 40.4 kg ha -1 in stover was observed under bed planting”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting produced maximum stover nitrogen uptake of 40.4 kg ha -1.
- Organ / stage
- stovere0
- Treatment
- bed plantinge0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptakee0
- Direction
- Maximume0
- Value
- 40.4 kg ha -1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum nitrogen uptake of 115.3 kg ha -1 in grains and 40.4 kg ha -1 in stover was observed under bed planting”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen uptake with bed planting was at par with ridge planting and higher than flat sowing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which was at par with ridge sowing method but significantly higher than flat sowing method.”
t0“maize”
t1“nitrogen uptake of 115.3 kg ha -1 in grains and 40.4 kg ha -1 in stover was observed under bed planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Application of 150 kg N ha -1 increased grain and stover nitrogen uptake compared with control, 90 and 120 kg N ha -1.
- Treatment
- 150 kg N ha -1e0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptake in grains and stovere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control, 90 kg N ha -1 and 120 kg N ha -1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 150 kg N ha -1 recorded significantly higher nitrogen uptake in grains and stover over control, 90 kg N ha -1 and 120 kg N ha -1”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting methods did not significantly affect available soil nitrogen after harvest.
- Treatment
- different planting methodse0
- Outcome
- Available nitrogen status in soile0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Available nitrogen status in soil after harvesting of maize was not significantly affected by different planting methods.”
Claim · model-written summary
The 180 kg N ha -1 rate gave maximum available soil nitrogen of 146.8 kg ha -1.
- Treatment
- 180 kg N ha -1e0
- Outcome
- available nitrogen status in soile0
- Direction
- Maximume0
- Value
- 146.8 kg ha -1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum available nitrogen status in soil (146.8 kg ha -1 ) was recorded after the application of 180 kg N ha -1 to maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting methods and nitrogen rates did not significantly influence plant stand.
- Treatment
- Different planting methods and nitrogen levelse0
- Outcome
- plant stande0
- Direction
- did not significantly influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Different planting methods and nitrogen levels did not significantly influence the plant stand and available phosphorus and potassium status in soil after harvesting of maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting methods and nitrogen rates did not significantly influence available soil phosphorus and potassium.
- Treatment
- Different planting methods and nitrogen levelse0
- Outcome
- available phosphorus and potassium status in soile0
- Direction
- did not significantly influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Different planting methods and nitrogen levels did not significantly influence the plant stand and available phosphorus and potassium status in soil after harvesting of maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend bed grown maize with 150 kg N ha -1 for higher economic returns.
- Outcome
- grown on beds with application of 150 kg N ha -1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize may be grown on beds with application of 150 kg N ha -1”
The same questions in other 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 →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
402 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
485 papers more in this group
See all 489 papers →nitrogen · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 619 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
744 papers more in this group
See all 748 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 →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.