Abstract
In the intensive rice-wheat system (RWS) of the western India, direct dry seeding of rice, zero tillage in both rice and wheat, and residue recycling from rice can greatly reduce water and labour input, eliminate residue burning, and potentially conserve natural resources. The objectives of this 2-year field study conducted at the Project Directorate for Cropping Systems research Modipuram, India in 2005 to 2007 were to determine the effects of tillage, crop establishment methods and residue on crop growth, physiology, grain yield, water productivity, and economic profitability in RWS. The treatments included six combinations of rice establishment and tillage in rice with and without Sesbania coculture. In the following season wheat was raised as zero-till (ZTW) in all the treatments and the residue from previous rice was either removed or retained on the soil surface without incorporation. Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT) and 7.3% lower with CT. Rice yields were similar from CT-DSR and ZT-DSR. The Sesbania co-culture in rice increased mean grain yield by 5% compared to no Sesbania. DSR under CT and ZT was characterized by more panicle number per m 2 but less grain number per panicle, and lower harvest index compared with CT-PTR. Mean wheat grain yield was significantly higher from crop planted after ZT-DSR (5.03Mg ha -1 ) compared to sown after CT-PTR (4.74t ha -1 ), and CT-DSR (4.86tha -1 ). Higher leaf water potential and increased photosynthesis rates were recorded in wheat under residue mulch compared to no mulch. Canopy temperature in wheat during the grain filling stage was 0.6-1.5 o C lower under residue retention compared to residue removal. The normalized vegetative index (NDVI) adequately described the effect of residue mulch on the growth of both rice and wheat crops. Residue retention increased mean grain yield of wheat by 9.9% compared to removal of residue. On an average, DSR used 7-13.9% less water compared to CT-PTR. Water productivity of wheat was highest (0.91kg grain m -3 water) in ZT-DSR/ZTW+R and lowest (~0.77kg grain m -3 water) in CT-PTR/ZTW and CT-DSR/ZTW. Overall, DSR/ ZTW+R had higher water productivity and net returns than CT-PTR/ZTW in the RWS. Our study showed that conservation agriculture-based crop management practices (ZT-DSR/ZTW+R) could provide a better alternative to the conventional RWS to sustain high productivity while significant savings in water, labour and production costs under changing climate.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-till dry direct-seeded rice yield was 9.9% lower than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- zero till (ZT)e0
- Outcome
- rice yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 9.9 %e0
- Comparator
- conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional-till direct-seeded rice yield was 7.3% lower than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CTe1
- Outcome
- rice yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 7.3%e1
- Comparator
- conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e1“and 7.3% lower with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice yields were similar between conventional-till and zero-till direct-seeded rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae2
- Treatment
- CT-DSRe2
- Outcome
- Rice yieldse2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- ZT-DSRe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Rice yields were similar from CT-DSR and ZT-DSR”
Claim · model-written summary
Sesbania co-culture increased mean rice grain yield by 5% compared with no Sesbania.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae3
- Treatment
- Sesbania co-culturee3
- Outcome
- mean grain yielde3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Value
- 5%e3
- Comparator
- no Sesbaniae3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The Sesbania co-culture in rice increased mean grain yield by 5% compared to no Sesbania”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct-seeded rice under conventional and zero tillage had more panicles per m2 than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- DSRe4
- Outcome
- panicle number per m 2e4
- Direction
- moree4
- Comparator
- CT-PTRe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e4“DSR under CT and ZT was characterized by more panicle number per m 2 but less grain number per panicle, and lower harvest index compared with CT-PTR”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct-seeded rice under conventional and zero tillage had fewer grains per panicle than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- DSRe4
- Outcome
- grain number per paniclee4
- Direction
- lesse4
- Comparator
- CT-PTRe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e4“DSR under CT and ZT was characterized by more panicle number per m 2 but less grain number per panicle, and lower harvest index compared with CT-PTR”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct-seeded rice under conventional and zero tillage had a lower harvest index than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e4“DSR under CT and ZT was characterized by more panicle number per m 2 but less grain number per panicle, and lower harvest index compared with CT-PTR”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield after zero-till direct-seeded rice was significantly higher than after conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume5 - Treatment
- ZT-DSRe5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 5.03Mg ha -1e5
- Qualifier
- 4.74t ha -1e5
- Comparator
- CT-PTRe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Mean wheat grain yield was significantly higher from crop planted after ZT-DSR (5.03Mg ha -1 ) compared to sown after CT-PTR (4.74t ha -1 ), and CT-DSR (4.86tha -1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield after zero-till direct-seeded rice was significantly higher than after conventional-till direct-seeded rice.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume5
- Treatment
- ZT-DSRe5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- highere5
- Qualifier
- 4.86tha -1e5
- Comparator
- CT-DSRe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Mean wheat grain yield was significantly higher from crop planted after ZT-DSR (5.03Mg ha -1 ) compared to sown after CT-PTR (4.74t ha -1 ), and CT-DSR (4.86tha -1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat leaf water potential was higher under residue mulch than without mulch.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- residue mulche6
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale6
- Direction
- Highere6
- Comparator
- no mulche6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher leaf water potential and increased photosynthesis rates were recorded in wheat under residue mulch compared to no mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat photosynthesis rates increased under residue mulch compared with no mulch.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- residue mulche6
- Outcome
- photosynthesis ratese6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Comparator
- no mulche6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher leaf water potential and increased photosynthesis rates were recorded in wheat under residue mulch compared to no mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention lowered wheat canopy temperature during grain filling by 0.6-1.5 °C relative to residue removal.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume7
- Organ / stage
- grain filling stagee7
- Treatment
- residue retentione7
- Outcome
- Canopy temperaturee7
- Direction
- lowere7
- Value
- 0.6-1.5 o Ce7
- Comparator
- residue removale7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Canopy temperature in wheat during the grain filling stage was 0.6-1.5 o C lower under residue retention compared to residue removal”
Claim · model-written summary
The normalized vegetative index (NDVI) adequately described the effect of residue mulch on rice and wheat growth.
- Taxon
- rice and wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivume1
- Outcome
- the effect of residue mulch on the growthe1
- Qualifier
- normalized vegetative index (NDVI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The normalized vegetative index (NDVI) adequately described the effect of residue mulch on the growth of both rice and wheat crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention increased wheat grain yield by 9.9% compared with residue removal.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Residue retentione1
- Outcome
- mean grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 9.9%e1
- Comparator
- removal of residuee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Residue retention increased mean grain yield of wheat by 9.9% compared to removal of residue”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct-seeded rice used 7-13.9% less water than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e1“On an average, DSR used 7-13.9% less water compared to CT-PTR”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat water productivity was highest under zero-till direct-seeded rice with residue retention.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- ZT-DSR/ZTW+Re1
- Outcome
- Water productivitye1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 0.91kg grain m -3 watere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Water productivity of wheat was highest (0.91kg grain m -3 water) in ZT-DSR/ZTW+R and lowest (~0.77kg grain m -3 water) in CT-PTR/ZTW and CT-DSR/ZTW”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat water productivity was lowest under the CT-PTR/ZTW and CT-DSR/ZTW practices.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- CT-PTR/ZTW and CT-DSR/ZTWe1
- Outcome
- Water productivitye1
- Direction
- loweste1
- Value
- ~0.77kg grain m -3 watere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Water productivity of wheat was highest (0.91kg grain m -3 water) in ZT-DSR/ZTW+R and lowest (~0.77kg grain m -3 water) in CT-PTR/ZTW and CT-DSR/ZTW”
Claim · model-written summary
DSR with residue-retained zero-till wheat had higher water productivity than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice with zero-till wheat.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- DSR/ ZTW+Re1
- Outcome
- water productivitye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- CT-PTR/ZTWe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e1“Overall, DSR/ ZTW+R had higher water productivity and net returns than CT-PTR/ZTW in the RWS”
Claim · model-written summary
DSR with residue-retained zero-till wheat had higher net returns than conventional-till puddled transplanted rice with zero-till wheat.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- DSR/ ZTW+Re1
- Outcome
- net returnse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- CT-PTR/ZTWe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e1“Overall, DSR/ ZTW+R had higher water productivity and net returns than CT-PTR/ZTW in the RWS”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture-based crop management (ZT-DSR/ZTW+R) could be a better alternative to conventional rice-wheat practice, sustaining productivity with water, labour and cost savings.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Outcome
- conservation agriculture-based crop management practicese1
- Qualifier
- sustain high productivity while significant savings in water, labour and production costse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to conventional till puddled transplanted rice (CT-PTR), rice yields in dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) averaged 9.9 % lower with zero till (ZT)”
e1“Our study showed that conservation agriculture-based crop management practices (ZT-DSR/ZTW+R) could provide a better alternative to the conventional RWS to sustain high productivity while significant savings in water, labour and production costs under changing climate”
The same questions in other papers
Sesbania · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →transplanting · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →organic · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
280 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 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 →transplanting · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
921 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- positive
1,074 papers more in this group
See all 1,078 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
- positive
- positive
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →mulching · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.