Abstract
A field experiment was conducted in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University farm, Coimbatore to compare the organic nutrient management packages with integrated nutrient management (INM) in cotton. The experiment was consisted of eighteen treatments, laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design and replicated thrice. The results revealed that INM practices increased the plant height over other treatments. Significant increase in yield components like sympodial branches plant-1, number of bolls plant-1 and boll weight were observed under INM treatment and was at par with recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), Farm yard manure and poultry manure compared to all other treatment combinations. The INM practice resulted in significantly higher seed cotton yield and was comparable with RDF. The quality characters did not exhibit any significant variation among the nutrient management practices. Higher gross and net returns and B:C ratio were also recorded in INM practices.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Claim · model-written summary
INM practices increased cotton plant height over other treatments.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- INM practicese1
- Outcome
- plant heighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- other treatmentse1
- Setting
- Tamil Nadu Agricultural University farm, Coimbatoree7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The results revealed that INM practices increased the plant height over other treatments”
e7“A field experiment was conducted in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University farm, Coimbatore”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
INM treatment significantly increased cotton yield components over all other treatment combinations.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- INM treatmente2
- Outcome
- sympodial branches plant-1, number of bolls plant-1 and boll weighte2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Comparator
- all other treatment combinationse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Significant increase in yield components like sympodial branches plant-1, number of bolls plant-1 and boll weight were observed under INM treatment”
e3“was at par with recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), Farm yard manure and poultry manure compared to all other treatment combinations”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
INM treatment yield components were at par with those under the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF).
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- INM treatmente2
- Outcome
- yield componentse2
- Direction
- at pare3
- Comparator
- recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Significant increase in yield components like sympodial branches plant-1, number of bolls plant-1 and boll weight were observed under INM treatment”
e3“was at par with recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), Farm yard manure and poultry manure compared to all other treatment combinations”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The INM practice significantly increased seed cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- INM practicee4
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The INM practice resulted in significantly higher seed cotton yield and was comparable with RDF”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed cotton yield under the INM practice was comparable with RDF.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- INM practicee4
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde4
- Direction
- comparablee4
- Comparator
- RDFe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The INM practice resulted in significantly higher seed cotton yield and was comparable with RDF”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Quality characters did not differ significantly among nutrient management practices.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- nutrient management practicese5
- Outcome
- quality characterse5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The quality characters did not exhibit any significant variation among the nutrient management practices”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
INM practices gave higher gross and net returns and B:C ratio.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- INM practicese6
- Outcome
- gross and net returns and B:C ratioe6
- Direction
- Highere6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher gross and net returns and B:C ratio were also recorded in INM practices”
t0“on Performance of Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: general · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →fertilization · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
198 papers more in this group
See all 202 papers →fertilization · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
496 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
546 papers more in this group
See all 550 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.