Paper · 2018 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Effect of conservation agriculture and weed management on weeds, soil microbial activity and wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity under a rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat cropping system

JITESH KUMAR BAGHEL; T K DAS; RISHI RAJ; et al.

9
claims
13
verbatim quotes
12
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Field experiment was carried out during the winter seasons of 2012-13 and 2013-14 to evaluate the effects of conservation agriculture (CA) and weed management practices on weeds, soil microbial activity and wheat productivity under a CA-based three-year old rice (Oryza sativa L.) - wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend Fiori & Paol.) rotation. The design was a split plot with CA practices adopted in main plots and weed control measures in sub-plots with three replications. Results showed that zero till wheat (ZTW) encountered comparatively lower weed infestations compared to conventional till wheat (CTW). The ZTW with rice residue under (DSR) + mungbean residue (MR) – ZTW + rice residue (RR) – zero till summer mungbean (ZTSMB) + wheat residue (WR) recorded 58.8% and 61.9% higher soil dehydrogenase activity (DHA) and 48.2% and 53.8% more microbial biomass carbon (MBC) during 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively than CTW under TPR-CTW, but weed control/ herbicides applications did not significantly influence microbial activity. Wheat crop yield was higher in ZTW than CTW. Among the CA treatments, the directseeded rice (DSR) + mungbean residue (MR) – ZTW + rice residue (RR) – zero till summer mungbean (ZTSMB) + wheat residue (WR), and DSR – ZTW – ZTSMB resulted in higher values of yield attributes (spike no./m2, grain/ spike) and yield of wheat. The increase in wheat yield due to the DSR + MR – ZTW + RR –ZTSMB + WR was 17.9 and 18.4%, respectively in 2012-13 and 2013-14 over that in TPR–CTW. The sequential applications of preemergence pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha at 2 days after sowing (DAS) and post-emergence sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha at 30 DAS resulted in an effective control of weeds, irrespective of zero till (ZT) and conventional till (CT) conditions and gave significantly higher yield attributes and yield of wheat. This study provides information on better soil microbial health and higher wheat productivity under CA practices compared to CT conditions through effective weed control in rice-wheat cropping system. The recommendation may be adopted in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India with similar climatic and edaphic conditions.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero till wheat had lower weed infestation than conventional till wheat.

Treatment
zero till wheat (ZTW)e0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed infestationse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
conventional till wheat (CTW)e0

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

e0

“zero till wheat (ZTW) encountered comparatively lower weed infestations compared to conventional till wheat (CTW)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 494–607 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The residue based zero till sequence increased soil dehydrogenase activity by 58.8% and 61.9% in successive seasons.

Outcome
soil dehydrogenase activity (DHA)e0
Direction
highere0
Value
58.8% and 61.9%e0
Comparator
CTW under TPR-CTWe0

Not reportedTreatment

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

e0

“recorded 58.8% and 61.9% higher soil dehydrogenase activity (DHA) and 48.2% and 53.8% more microbial biomass carbon (MBC) during 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively than CTW under TPR-CTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 754–939 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–118 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The residue based zero till sequence increased microbial biomass carbon by 48.2% and 53.8%.

Outcome
microbial biomass carbon (MBC)e0
Direction
moree0
Value
48.2% and 53.8%e0
Comparator
CTW under TPR-CTWe0

Not reportedTreatment

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

e0

“48.2% and 53.8% more microbial biomass carbon (MBC) during 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively than CTW under TPR-CTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–939 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–118 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed control and herbicides did not significantly influence microbial activity.

Treatment
weed control/ herbicides applicationse0
Outcome
microbial activitye0

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

e0

“weed control/ herbicides applications did not significantly influence microbial activity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1033 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–118 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat yield was higher under zero tillage than conventional tillage.

Treatment
ZTWe0
Outcome
crop yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
CTWe0

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

e0

“Wheat crop yield was higher in ZTW than CTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1035–1078 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The residue based sequence increased wheat yield by 17.9% in 2012-13.

Treatment
DSR + MR – ZTW + RR –ZTSMB + WRe0
Outcome
wheat yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
17.9e0
Qualifier
2012-13e0
Comparator
TPR–CTWe0

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

e0

“The increase in wheat yield due to the DSR + MR – ZTW + RR –ZTSMB + WR was 17.9 and 18.4%, respectively in 2012-13 and 2013-14 over that in TPR–CTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1358–1505 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The residue based sequence increased wheat yield by 18.4% in 2013-14.

Treatment
DSR + MR – ZTW + RR –ZTSMB + WRe0
Outcome
wheat yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
18.4%e0
Qualifier
2013-14e0
Comparator
TPR–CTWe0

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

e0

“The increase in wheat yield due to the DSR + MR – ZTW + RR –ZTSMB + WR was 17.9 and 18.4%, respectively in 2012-13 and 2013-14 over that in TPR–CTW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1358–1505 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential pendimethalin and sulfosulfuron controlled weeds and increased wheat yield attributes and yield.

Treatment
preemergence pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha at 2 days after sowing (DAS) and post-emergence sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha at 30 DASe0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
yield attributes and yield of wheate0
Direction
highere0

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

e0

“The sequential applications of preemergence pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha at 2 days after sowing (DAS) and post-emergence sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha at 30 DAS resulted in an effective control of weeds, irrespective of zero till (ZT) and conventional till (CT) conditions and gave significantly higher yield attributes and yield of wheat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1507–1833 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend the conservation agriculture practice in similar Indo-Gangetic environments.

Outcome
recommendation may be adoptede0
Setting
Indo-Gangetic plains of Indiae0

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

e0

“The recommendation may be adopted in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India with similar climatic and edaphic conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2035–2151 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–118 · show in text ↑

pendimethalin · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

66 papers: 57 positive, 9 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

62 papers more in this group

See all 66 papers →

Vigna radiata · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

Oryza sativa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

154 papers: 128 positive, 26 negative or no effect

127 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

150 papers more in this group

See all 154 papers →

tillage · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

183 papers: 126 positive, 57 negative or no effect

125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

179 papers more in this group

See all 183 papers →

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

563 papers: 466 positive, 97 negative or no effect

465 papers in the same direction as this paper · 87 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

559 papers more in this group

See all 563 papers →

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

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

1,410 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 papers →

herbicide · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

5 papers: 0 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.