Abstract
A field investigation entitled Response of Kharif Maize (Zea mays L.) to Planting Methods and Nitrogen Management approach by Leaf Color Chart (LCC) was conducted during the kharif of 2016 at the Students’ Research farm, Khalsa College, Amritsar. The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam in texture with normal soil PH and electrical conductivity, medium in organic carbon and low in available N, medium in available P and high in K. Bed planted maize had significant higher grain yield (41.86 q/ha) and yield attribute as compared to ridge (36.57 q/ha) and flat (35.95 q/ha) planted Maize, but at par with zero tillage method planted maize (39.83 q/ha). However the growth attributes, straw yield and benefit cost ratio were higher in maize sowing by zero tillage. Among nitrogen management treatment, nitrogen applied by NLCC5 had significantly higher growth, yield and yield attributes than NLCC4 and Control No whereas at par with NLCC6.
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
Bed planting produced higher maize grain yield than ridge and flat planting, but was at par with zero tillage.
- Treatment
- Bed plantede0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 41.86 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- at par with zero tillage method planted maize (39.83 q/ha)e0
- Comparator
- ridgee0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Bed planted maize had significant higher grain yield (41.86 q/ha) and yield attribute as compared to ridge (36.57 q/ha) and flat (35.95 q/ha) planted Maize, but at par with zero tillage method planted maize (39.83 q/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bed planting increased maize yield attributes relative to ridge and flat planting.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“Bed planted maize had significant higher grain yield (41.86 q/ha) and yield attribute as compared to ridge (36.57 q/ha) and flat (35.95 q/ha) planted Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage maize had higher growth attributes, straw yield and benefit cost ratio.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- growth attributes, straw yield and benefit cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“growth attributes, straw yield and benefit cost ratio were higher in maize sowing by zero tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
NLCC5 nitrogen management produced higher growth, yield and yield attributes than NLCC4 and Control No, and was at par with NLCC6.
- Treatment
- nitrogen applied by NLCC5e0
- Outcome
- growth, yield and yield attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- at par with NLCC6e0
- Comparator
- NLCC4 and Control Noe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
e0“nitrogen applied by NLCC5 had significantly higher growth, yield and yield attributes than NLCC4 and Control No whereas at par with NLCC6”
The same questions in other 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.