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 effect of tillage and target yield approach on growth, yield and yield attributes and economics of maize – wheat cropping system. The results indicated that the growth and yield parameters of maize and wheat 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 were recorded due to interaction of tillage and target yield approach. The growth and yield and yield parameters of wheat did not differ due to tillage practices and target yield approaches followed for maize. Maize equivalent yield of wheat and system productivity were followed same trend as that of maize yield. Among different tillage practices, zero tillage (Rs. 78,181 ha-1 and 2.19) and zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,272 ha-1 and 2.18) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively. Similarly among different target yield approaches, the target yield of 10 t ha-1 (Rs. 85,105 and 2.18) followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,565 and 2.17) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively as compare to other treatments.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Maize and wheat growth and yield parameters at harvest were not influenced by tillage practices.
- Taxon
- maize and wheat
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- growth and yield parameterse0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the growth and yield parameters of maize and wheat at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch gave relatively higher yield parameters than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- yield parameterse0
- Direction
- relatively highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All these yield parameters were relatively higher in zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 when compared to conventional tillage.”
t0“maize – wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain and stover yield did not differ significantly among tillage practices.
- Treatment
- different tillage management practicese0
- Outcome
- Grain and stover yielde0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain and stover yield of maize did not differ significantly due to different tillage management practices.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch produced 65.9 q ha-1 yield, more than zero tillage and conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- relatively highere0
- Value
- 65.9 q ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 64.3 q ha-1e0
- Comparator
- zero tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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).”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize growth and yield parameters differed significantly with nutrient management.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“due to nutrient management strategies, the growth and yield parameters of maize differed significantly.”
Claim · model-written summary
The 10 t ha-1 target gave significantly higher maize growth and yield attributes than most treatments.
- Treatment
- Target yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- growth and yield attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- except targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDFe0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer nutrient management practice gave the lowest growth and yield attributes.
- Treatment
- farmer’s practice of nutrient managemente0
- Outcome
- these attributese0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- RDFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest values of these attributes were recorded in farmer’s practice of nutrient management followed by RDF.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The 10 t ha-1 target produced maize grain yield of 69.9 q ha-1, significantly higher than other approaches.
- Treatment
- targeted yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 69.9 q ha-1e0
- Comparator
- targeted yield of 8 t ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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.”
Claim · model-written summary
The 10 t ha-1 target produced maize stover yield of 89.5 q ha-1, significantly higher than other approaches.
- Treatment
- targeted yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- stover yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 89.5 q ha-1e0
- Comparator
- targeted yield of 8 t ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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.”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer practice had lowest maize grain yield of 53.6 q ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer practice had lowest maize stover yield of 74.3 q ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage by target yield interaction did not significantly affect maize grain and stover yield.
- Treatment
- interaction of tillage and target yield approache0
- Outcome
- grain and stover yielde0
- Direction
- Non significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Non significant differences for grain and stover yield of maize were recorded due to interaction of tillage and target yield approach.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat growth and yield parameters did not differ with prior maize tillage and target yield approaches.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- tillage practices and target yield approachese0
- Outcome
- growth and yield and yield parameterse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growth and yield and yield parameters of wheat did not differ due to tillage practices and target yield approaches followed for maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat maize equivalent yield and system productivity followed the maize yield trend.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- Maize equivalent yield of wheat and system productivitye0
- Comparator
- maize yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize equivalent yield of wheat and system productivity were followed same trend as that of maize yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage produced maximum net returns of Rs. 78,181 ha-1.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- Rs. 78,181 ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage (Rs. 78,181 ha-1 and 2.19) and zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,272 ha-1 and 2.18) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively.”
t0“maize – wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch produced net returns of Rs. 80,272 ha-1.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- Rs. 80,272 ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage (Rs. 78,181 ha-1 and 2.19) and zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,272 ha-1 and 2.18) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively.”
t0“maize – wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage achieved a BC ratio of 2.19.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- BC ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.19e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage (Rs. 78,181 ha-1 and 2.19) and zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,272 ha-1 and 2.18) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively.”
t0“maize – wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch achieved a BC ratio of 2.18.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- BC ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.18e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zero tillage (Rs. 78,181 ha-1 and 2.19) and zero tillage with mulch @ 5 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,272 ha-1 and 2.18) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively.”
t0“maize – wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The 10 t ha-1 target produced maximum net returns of Rs. 85,105 and BC ratio 2.18.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- target yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- net returns and higher BC ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- Rs. 85,105 and 2.18e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the target yield of 10 t ha-1 (Rs. 85,105 and 2.18) followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,565 and 2.17) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively as compare to other treatments.”
t0“maize – wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The 8 t ha-1 target produced net returns of Rs. 80,565 and BC ratio 2.17.
- Taxon
- maize – wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- targeted yield of 8 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- net returns and higher BC ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- Rs. 80,565 and 2.17e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 (Rs. 80,565 and 2.17) were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio respectively as compare to other treatments.”
t0“maize – wheat”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
145 papers more in this group
See all 149 papers →cultivation system · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 110 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
151 papers more in this group
See all 155 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 →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
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.