Paper · 2020 · The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences

SIGNIFICANCE OF PARTIAL ROOT ZONE DRYING AND MULCHES FOR WATER SAVING AND WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT

S Ahmad; M Raza; M Saleem; et al.

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
45
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

One of the main negative effects of climate change is the increasing scarcity of water worldwide. Wheat is the second major staple food of the world and drought is the main factor affecting its production. In order to ensure food security, there is need to adopt easy and economic techniques for increasing crop production under limited water resources. Two of the effective techniques are; use of ground covers and partial root zone drying (PRD). Experiments were comprised of two irrigation methods (I 1 = irrigation on both sides of roots and I 2 = irrigation to only one side of root as alternate irrigation) and four ground covers (M 0 = open ground without any cover, M 1 = black plastic cover, M 2 = wheat straw cover and M 4 = cotton sticks cover). Results revealed that more spike length, number of spikelets and grains were found in full irrigation treatment. While water use efficiency and grain nutrient (NPK) contents were more in PRD. All soil covers suppress the weeds and significantly influenced the yield attributes as well as the grain nutrient contents. However, black plastic cover performed the best. It was concluded that joint use of both techniques was more effective than their sole application and combination of PRD with black plastic mulch performed the best than rest of the treatments.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full irrigation gave more spike length, number of spikelets and grains in wheat.

Treatment
full irrigation treatmente1
Outcome
spike length, number of spikelets and grainse1
Direction
moree1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e1

“Results revealed that more spike length, number of spikelets and grains were found in full irrigation treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–868 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water use efficiency and grain NPK contents were higher under PRD in wheat.

Treatment
PRDe2
Outcome
water use efficiency and grain nutrient (NPK) contentse2
Direction
moree2

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e2

“While water use efficiency and grain nutrient (NPK) contents were more in PRD”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 870–947 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All soil covers suppressed weeds in wheat.

Treatment
soil coverse3
Interactor
weedse3weed
Outcome
weedse3
Direction
suppresse3

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e3

“All soil covers suppress the weeds and significantly influenced the yield attributes as well as the grain nutrient contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1072 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil covers significantly influenced the yield attributes and grain nutrient contents of wheat.

Treatment
soil coverse3
Outcome
yield attributes as well as the grain nutrient contentse3

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e3

“All soil covers suppress the weeds and significantly influenced the yield attributes as well as the grain nutrient contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1072 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Black plastic cover performed the best among the ground covers.

Treatment
black plastic covere4
Outcome
performed the beste4
Direction
the beste4

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e4

“However, black plastic cover performed the best”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1074–1121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Joint use of partial root zone drying and ground cover was more effective than their sole application in wheat.

Treatment
joint use of both techniquese5
Outcome
more effectivee5
Direction
moree5
Comparator
their sole applicatione5

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e5

“It was concluded that joint use of both techniques was more effective than their sole application and combination of PRD with black plastic mulch performed the best than rest of the treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1123–1315 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Combination of PRD with black plastic mulch performed the best of the treatments in wheat.

Treatment
combination of PRD with black plastic mulche5
Outcome
performed the beste5
Direction
the beste5
Comparator
rest of the treatmentse5

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“WEED SUPPRESSION IN WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–99 · show in text ↑
e5

“It was concluded that joint use of both techniques was more effective than their sole application and combination of PRD with black plastic mulch performed the best than rest of the treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1123–1315 · show in text ↑

irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

303 papers: 253 positive, 50 negative or no effect

252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

299 papers more in this group

See all 303 papers →

irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

989 papers: 798 positive, 191 negative or no effect

797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

985 papers more in this group

See all 989 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.