Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 at Agricultural Research Station, Bheemarayanagudi to study the influence of tillage and target yield approach on growth, yield and economics of maize – chickpea cropping system. The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices. All these yield parameters were relatively higher in zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 when compared to conventional tillage. Grain and stover yield of maize did not differ significantly due to different tillage management practices. But, zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 produced relatively higher yield (65.9 q ha-1) than the zero tillage (64.3 q ha-1) followed by conventional tillage (55.8 q ha-1). Further, due to nutrient management strategies, the growth and yield parameters of maize differed significantly. Target yield of 10 t ha-1 exhibited significantly higher growth and yield attributes at harvest when compared to other treatments except targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF. The lowest values of these attributes were recorded in farmer’s practice of nutrient management followed by RDF. The grain yield and stover yield (69.9 q ha-1and 89.5 q ha-1, respectively) of maize was significantly higher with targeted yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF. The lowest grain and stover yield (53.6 q ha-1 and 74.3 q ha-1, respectively) was recorded in farmers practice followed by RDF. Non significant differences for grain and stover yield of maize was recorded due to interaction of tillage and target yield approach. The growth and yield and yield parameters of chickpea did not differ due to tillage practices and target yield approaches followed for maize. Maize equivalent yield of chickpea and system productivity were followed same trend as that of maize yield. Among different tillage practices, significantly higher gross returns (Rs.1,25,981 ha-1) and net returns (Rs. 88,017 ha-1) were recorded with zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 followed by zero tillage. But, B:C ratio (2.33) in zero tillage was slightly higher than zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 (2.32). Significantly lower gross return (Rs.1,10,391 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 69,527 ha-1) and B:C (1.70) ratio were recorded in conventional tillage. Significantly higher gross return (Rs.1,33,050 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 92,570 ha-1) and B:C ratio (2.30) were recorded in target yield of 10 t ha-1 and was followed by target yield of 8 t ha-1. The lowest gross returns (Rs.1,05,762 ha-1) and net returns (Rs. 71,018 ha-1) were obtained with farmers’ practice’ followed by RDF. Significantly lowest B:C ratio was recorded with RDF (1.88) followed 150% RDF (1.95) and found to be on par with farmers’ practice (2.07).
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practices did not influence growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest; maize grain and stover yield did not differ significantly among tillage practices.
- Taxon
- maize and chickpea
Cicer arietinum
Zea mayse1 - Treatment
- tillage practicese1
- Outcome
- growth and yield parameterse1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
e2“Grain and stover yield of maize did not differ significantly due to different tillage management practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch at 5 t/ha gave higher yield parameters than conventional tillage in maize and chickpea.
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- yield parameterse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All these yield parameters were relatively higher in zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 when compared to conventional tillage”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch at 5 t/ha gave maize grain yield of 65.9 q/ha, higher than 55.8 q/ha under conventional tillage (64.3 q/ha under zero tillage).
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 65.9 q ha-1e1
- Qualifier
- 64.3 q ha-1e1
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 produced relatively higher yield (65.9 q ha-1) than the zero tillage (64.3 q ha-1) followed by conventional tillage (55.8 q ha-1)”
e2“Grain and stover yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient management strategies significantly changed growth and yield parameters of maize.
- Treatment
- nutrient management strategiese1
- Outcome
- growth and yield parameterse1
- Direction
- differed significantlye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“due to nutrient management strategies, the growth and yield parameters of maize differed significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t/ha gave the highest maize grain yield (69.9 q/ha), significantly higher than target yield of 8 t/ha and 150% RDF.
- Treatment
- targeted yield of 10 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Value
- 69.9 q ha-1e1
- Comparator
- targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The grain yield and stover yield (69.9 q ha-1and 89.5 q ha-1, respectively) of maize was significantly higher with targeted yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF”
e2“Grain and stover yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t/ha gave the highest maize stover yield (89.5 q/ha), significantly higher than target yield of 8 t/ha and 150% RDF.
- Treatment
- targeted yield of 10 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- stover yielde1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Value
- 89.5 q ha-1e1
- Comparator
- targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDFe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The grain yield and stover yield (69.9 q ha-1and 89.5 q ha-1, respectively) of maize was significantly higher with targeted yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF”
e2“Grain and stover yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers practice gave the lowest maize grain and stover yield (grain 53.6 q/ha; stover 74.3 q/ha), followed by RDF.
- Treatment
- farmers practicee1
- Outcome
- grain and stover yielde1
- Direction
- loweste1
- Value
- 53.6 q ha-1e1
- Qualifier
- 74.3 q ha-1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The lowest grain and stover yield (53.6 q ha-1 and 74.3 q ha-1, respectively) was recorded in farmers practice followed by RDF”
e2“Grain and stover yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction of tillage and target yield approach had no significant effect on maize grain and stover yield.
- Treatment
- interaction of tillage and target yield approache1
- Outcome
- grain and stover yield of maizee1
- Direction
- Non significant differencese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Non significant differences for grain and stover yield of maize was recorded due to interaction of tillage and target yield approach”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practices and target yield approaches did not change growth and yield parameters of chickpea.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- tillage practices and target yield approachese1
- Outcome
- yield parameterse1
- Direction
- did not differe1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The growth and yield and yield parameters of chickpea did not differ due to tillage practices and target yield approaches followed for maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize equivalent yield of chickpea and system productivity followed the same trend as maize yield.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Outcome
- Maize equivalent yield of chickpea and system productivitye1
- Direction
- followed same trende1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize equivalent yield of chickpea and system productivity were followed same trend as that of maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch at 5 t/ha gave significantly higher gross returns (Rs.1,25,981/ha) than zero tillage.
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- gross returnse1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Value
- Rs.1,25,981 ha-1e1
- Comparator
- zero tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Among different tillage practices, significantly higher gross returns (Rs.1,25,981 ha-1) and net returns (Rs. 88,017 ha-1) were recorded with zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 followed by zero tillage”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch at 5 t/ha gave significantly higher net returns (Rs.88,017/ha) than zero tillage.
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- net returnse1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Value
- Rs. 88,017 ha-1e1
- Comparator
- zero tillagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Among different tillage practices, significantly higher gross returns (Rs.1,25,981 ha-1) and net returns (Rs. 88,017 ha-1) were recorded with zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 followed by zero tillage”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave significantly lower gross return (Rs.1,10,391/ha).
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee1
- Outcome
- gross returne1
- Direction
- Significantly lowere1
- Value
- Rs.1,10,391 ha-1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Significantly lower gross return (Rs.1,10,391 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 69,527 ha-1) and B:C (1.70) ratio were recorded in conventional tillage”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave significantly lower net returns (Rs.69,527/ha).
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee1
- Outcome
- net returnse1
- Direction
- Significantly lowere1
- Value
- Rs. 69,527 ha-1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Significantly lower gross return (Rs.1,10,391 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 69,527 ha-1) and B:C (1.70) ratio were recorded in conventional tillage”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave a significantly lower B:C ratio (1.70).
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee1
- Outcome
- B:Ce1
- Direction
- Significantly lowere1
- Value
- 1.70e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Significantly lower gross return (Rs.1,10,391 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 69,527 ha-1) and B:C (1.70) ratio were recorded in conventional tillage”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t/ha gave significantly higher gross returns (Rs.1,33,050/ha).
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- target yield of 10 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- gross returne1
- Direction
- Significantly highere1
- Value
- Rs.1,33,050 ha-1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Significantly higher gross return (Rs.1,33,050 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 92,570 ha-1) and B:C ratio (2.30) were recorded in target yield of 10 t ha-1”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t/ha gave significantly higher net returns (Rs.92,570/ha).
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- target yield of 10 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- net returnse1
- Direction
- Significantly highere1
- Value
- Rs. 92,570 ha-1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Significantly higher gross return (Rs.1,33,050 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 92,570 ha-1) and B:C ratio (2.30) were recorded in target yield of 10 t ha-1”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t/ha gave significantly higher B:C ratio (2.30).
- Taxon
- maize and chickpeaCicer arietinumZea mayse2
- Treatment
- target yield of 10 t ha-1e1
- Outcome
- B:Ce1
- Direction
- Significantly highere1
- Value
- 2.30e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Significantly higher gross return (Rs.1,33,050 ha-1), net returns (Rs. 92,570 ha-1) and B:C ratio (2.30) were recorded in target yield of 10 t ha-1”
e2“The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 papers →mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →mulching · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
17 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 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.