Paper · 2019 · Open Access Repository of ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics)

Influence Of Tillage Practices And Residue Management Practices on Yield Attributes And Yield Of Maize In Maize-Based Cropping Systems Under Semi-Arid Tropics

Aradhna Kumari; Girish Chander; P. Laxminarayana; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during kharif and rabi in 2016-17 and 2017-18 at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad to study the influence of tillage practices and residue management practices on yield attributes and yield of maize in maize-based cropping systems under semi-arid tropics. The field experiment was laid out on broad-beds and furrows in a split-split design with four replications under rainfed conditions. Main plot consisted of two tillage practices (minimum tillage and conventional tillage), sub-plot of two crop residue management practices (residue addition and no-residue addition) and sub-sub plot of two cropping systems (Maize-chickpea sequential cropping and maize+pigeonpea intercropping system). The results revealed that yield and yield attributes of maize did not vary significantly due to tillage practices, however, minimum tillage led to considerable yield losses. Among the residue management practices, addition of crop residue recorded significantly higher yield and yield attributes (cob girth, number of grain rows and test weight) as compared to no residue addition. Yield attributes and yield remained non-significant among the two cropping systems.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize yield and yield attributes did not vary significantly with tillage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
tillage practicese0
Outcome
yield and yield attributese0
Direction
did not varye0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield and yield attributes of maize did not vary significantly due to tillage practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 804–891 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum tillage led to considerable maize yield losses.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Treatment
minimum tillagee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lossese0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“minimum tillage led to considerable yield losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–950 · show in text ↑
t0

“Of Maize In Maize-Based Cropping Systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding crop residue significantly increased maize yield relative to no residue addition.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Treatment
addition of crop residuee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
no residue additione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“addition of crop residue recorded significantly higher yield and yield attributes (cob girth, number of grain rows and test weight) as compared to no residue addition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 992–1158 · show in text ↑
t0

“Of Maize In Maize-Based Cropping Systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding crop residue significantly increased maize cob girth, number of grain rows and test weight relative to no residue addition.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Treatment
addition of crop residuee0
Outcome
cob girth, number of grain rows and test weighte0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
no residue additione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“addition of crop residue recorded significantly higher yield and yield attributes (cob girth, number of grain rows and test weight) as compared to no residue addition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 992–1158 · show in text ↑
t0

“Of Maize In Maize-Based Cropping Systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize yield and yield attributes did not differ significantly between cropping systems.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayst0
Treatment
two cropping systemse0
Outcome
Yield attributes and yielde0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Yield attributes and yield remained non-significant among the two cropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1160–1242 · show in text ↑
t0

“Of Maize In Maize-Based Cropping Systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–134 · show in text ↑

cultivation system · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

155 papers: 110 positive, 45 negative or no effect

44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 110 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

151 papers more in this group

See all 155 papers →

organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

373 papers: 330 positive, 43 negative or no effect

329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

369 papers more in this group

See all 373 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

organic · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.