Abstract
A field trial was carried out during July month of kharif and October month of rabi seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 at Agricultural Research Station, Bheemarayanagudi to study the effect of nutrient management through target yield approach on uptake and soil microflora in maize – wheat/chickpea sequence cropping system under different tillage practices. The results indicated that the yield parameters of maize, wheat and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices. All these yield parameters were relatively higher in zero tillage with mulch at 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 at 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). The higher organic carbon and soil microflora at different stages were noticed with zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1. The higher available NPK and their uptake by maize crop were also recorded in zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1 followed by zero tillage compared to conventional tillage and zero tillage. The lower available NPK and their uptake by maize crop were recorded in conventional tillage and RDF. Further, due to nutrient management through target yield approach, the yield parameters of maize were differed significantly. Target yield of 10 t ha-1 exhibited significantly higher yield attributes at harvest when compared to other treatments except the 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 a 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. Significantly higher soil microflora, available NPK and their uptake by the maize crop was noticed in target yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF as compared to other treatments. The lowest soil microflora, available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) and their uptake by the maize was recorded in farmers practice followed by RDF. The same trend was followed statistically for organic carbon due to different treatments. Non significant differences for grain and stover yield of maize was recorded due to interaction of tillage and nutrient management practices. Similar trend was also followed due to interaction of tillage and nutrient management practices for succeeding wheat and chickpea. The yield and yield parameters of wheat and chickpea did not differ due to tillage practices and target yield approaches followed for maize. Maize equivalent yield of wheat and chickpea and system productivity were followed same trend as that of maize yield. Among different tillage practices, zero tillage and zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1 were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio. Similarly, among different nutrient management practices, the target yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 was recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practices did not influence yield parameters of maize, wheat and chickpea.
- Taxon
- maize, wheat and chickpea
Cicer arietinum
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- tillage practicese0
- Outcome
- yield parameterse0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results indicated that the yield parameters of maize, wheat and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch had relatively higher yield parameters than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- maize, wheat and chickpeaCicer arietinumTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch at 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 at 5 t ha-1 when compared to conventional tillage.”
e1“The results indicated that the yield parameters of maize, wheat and chickpea at harvest did not influence due to tillage practices.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain and stover yields 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 gave relatively higher maize yield, 65.9 q ha-1, than zero or conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- relatively highere0
- Value
- 65.9 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 at 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 – Wheat/Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch gave higher organic carbon and soil microflora.
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- organic carbon and soil microflorae0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher organic carbon and soil microflora at different stages were noticed with zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1.”
t0“Maize – Wheat/Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with mulch increased available NPK and maize uptake compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- available NPK and their uptake by maize crope0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher available NPK and their uptake by maize crop were also recorded in zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1 followed by zero tillage compared to conventional tillage and zero tillage.”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t ha-1 significantly raised maize yield attributes compared with other treatments except 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF.
- Treatment
- Target yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- yield attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- 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 yield attributes at harvest when compared to other treatments except the targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF.”
t0“Maize – Wheat/Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t ha-1 produced significantly higher maize grain yield of 69.9 q ha-1.
- 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 a targeted yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF.”
Claim · model-written summary
Target yield of 10 t ha-1 produced significantly higher maize stover yield of 89.5 q ha-1.
- 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 a targeted yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF.”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers practice gave the 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 – Wheat/Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers practice gave the 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 – Wheat/Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The 10 t ha-1 target gave significantly higher soil microflora, available NPK and maize uptake.
- Treatment
- target yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- soil microflora, available NPK and their uptake by the maize crope0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significantly higher soil microflora, available NPK and their uptake by the maize crop was noticed in target yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 and 150% RDF as compared to other treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize tillage by nutrient management interaction did not significantly affect grain or stover yield.
- Treatment
- interaction of tillage and nutrient management practicese0
- 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 was recorded due to interaction of tillage and nutrient management practices.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat and chickpea yield and yield parameters did not differ with tillage or maize target yield approach.
- Taxon
- wheat and chickpeaCicer arietinumTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- tillage practices and target yield approachese0
- Outcome
- 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 yield and yield parameters of wheat and chickpea did not differ due to tillage practices and target yield approaches followed for maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage and mulched zero tillage gave maximum net returns and higher BC ratio.
- Taxon
- Maize – Wheat/ChickpeaCicer arietinumTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- zero tillage and zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- net returns and higher BC ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Comparator
- different tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among different tillage practices, zero tillage and zero tillage with mulch at 5 t ha-1 were recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio.”
t0“Maize – Wheat/Chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The 10 t ha-1 target gave maximum net returns and higher BC ratio among nutrient management practices.
- Taxon
- Maize – Wheat/ChickpeaCicer arietinumTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- target yield of 10 t ha-1e0
- Outcome
- net returns and higher BC ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“among different nutrient management practices, the target yield of 10 t ha-1 followed by targeted yield of 8 t ha-1 was recorded maximum net returns and higher BC ratio as compare to other treatments.”
t0“Maize – Wheat/Chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →mulching · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 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 →tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
360 papers more in this group
See all 364 papers →8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.