Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod, India for six years (1993-1999) to study the impact of drip irrigation levels and mulching on coconut in littoral sandy soil. The treatments consisted of three levels of drip irrigation (66, 100, and 133 % of open pan evaporation (E0)) along with basin irrigation (100 % of E0) and rainfed control as main plot treatments and mulching with coconut leaves and no mulching as sub plot treatments. The experimental results revealed that annual leaf production and leaf nutrient status of coconut was better in the irrigated treatments compared to the rainfed control. The drip irrigation at 66 per cent of E0 (27 litres of water per palm per day during December-January months and 32 litres of water per palm per day during February-May months) resulted in water saving and the nut yield was on par with 100 per cent and 133 per cent of E0 through drip and 100 per cent of E0 through basin irrigation and differed significantly compared to rainfed control. The nut characters like nut weight, husk weight, copra thickness, copra content and copra yield was superior under irrigated treatments compared to rainfed control. The copra yield was 499 kg per ha under rainfed condition, where as it was 2087 to 2202 kg per ha under irrigated treatments. Irrigation along with mulching with coconut leaves resulted in significantly higher nut yields.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Annual leaf production and leaf nutrient status of coconut were better in the irrigated treatments than in the rainfed control.
Verbatim
e0“annual leaf production and leaf nutrient status of coconut was better in the irrigated treatments compared to the rainfed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 66 per cent of open pan evaporation (27 L water per palm per day in December-January and 32 L in February-May) resulted in water saving in coconut.
Verbatim
t0“COCONUT”
e1“The drip irrigation at 66 per cent of E0 (27 litres of water per palm per day during December-January months and 32 litres of water per palm per day during February-May months) resulted in water saving”
Claim · model-written summary
Nut yield of coconut under drip irrigation at 66 per cent of E0 was on par with drip irrigation at 100 and 133 per cent of E0 and basin irrigation at 100 per cent of E0.
Verbatim
t0“COCONUT”
e1“The drip irrigation at 66 per cent of E0 (27 litres of water per palm per day during December-January months and 32 litres of water per palm per day during February-May months) resulted in water saving”
e2“the nut yield was on par with 100 per cent and 133 per cent of E0 through drip and 100 per cent of E0 through basin irrigation and differed significantly compared to rainfed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Nut yield of coconut under the irrigation treatments differed significantly from the rainfed control.
- Taxon
- coconutt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 66 per cent of E0e1
- Outcome
- nut yielde2
- Comparator
- rainfed controle2
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“COCONUT”
e1“The drip irrigation at 66 per cent of E0 (27 litres of water per palm per day during December-January months and 32 litres of water per palm per day during February-May months) resulted in water saving”
e2“the nut yield was on par with 100 per cent and 133 per cent of E0 through drip and 100 per cent of E0 through basin irrigation and differed significantly compared to rainfed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Copra yield of coconut was 2087 to 2202 kg per ha under irrigated treatments, compared with 499 kg per ha under rainfed condition.
Verbatim
t0“COCONUT”
e3“The copra yield was 499 kg per ha under rainfed condition, where as it was 2087 to 2202 kg per ha under irrigated treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Nut weight, husk weight and copra thickness of coconut were superior under irrigated treatments compared with the rainfed control.
Verbatim
t0“COCONUT”
e4“The nut characters like nut weight, husk weight, copra thickness, copra content and copra yield was superior under irrigated treatments compared to rainfed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Copra content of coconut was superior under irrigated treatments compared with the rainfed control.
Verbatim
t0“COCONUT”
e4“The nut characters like nut weight, husk weight, copra thickness, copra content and copra yield was superior under irrigated treatments compared to rainfed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation together with mulching with coconut leaves resulted in significantly higher nut yields of coconut.
- Taxon
- coconute5
- Treatment
- Irrigation along with mulching with coconut leavese5
- Outcome
- nut yieldse5
- Direction
- highere5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e5“Irrigation along with mulching with coconut leaves resulted in significantly higher nut yields”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Cocos nucifera (coconut palm)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
mulching · yield · Cocos nucifera (coconut palm)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.