Abstract
Field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of tillage practices and potassium levels on growth, yield and yield components of chickpea, at Agronomy Research Farm, The University of Agriculture Peshawar Pakistan, in winter 2015-16. The experimental results exhibited that among tillage practices deep tillage significantly affected weed density (438 m-2), weeds dry weight (6.4 g m-2), weeds fresh weight (13.5 g m-2), nodules weight (1.15 g plant-1), plant height (83.3 cm), number of branches plant-1 (11), days to maturity (196), grain yield (1447 kg ha-1), biological yield (4155 kg ha-1) and harvest index (37.5 %), however days to emergence, emergence m-2, days to 50 % flowering, number of nodules, number of pods plant-1, grains pod-1, pods m-2 were non-significantly affected by tillage practice. The minimum grain yield and other yield related characters were observed in shallow tillage practice. Potassium had significant impact on number of nodules (16.0 plant-1), nodules weight (1.10 g plant-1), plant height (81.3 cm), number of pods plant-1 (33.5), pods m-2 (837), days to maturity (196), 100 grain weight (25.3 g), grain yield (1483 kg ha-1), biological yield (4244 kg ha-1) and harvest index (37.6 %),whereas days to emergence, emergence m-2, weed density, weeds dry weight, weeds fresh weight, number of branches plant-1, days to 50 % flowering were not significantly affected. The interaction between tillage practices and potassium levels was significant for only 50 % flowering while non-significant for the rest of parameters. Thus it is concluded from the experiment that deep tillage performed better as compared with shallow and medium deep tillage practices in terms of yield and yield components. Potassium application at the rate of 60 kg ha-1 improved growth and productivity in Peshawar region. Keywords: Chickpea; Grain yield; Nodules; Potassium; Yield http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80052
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage significantly affected weed density, weed biomass and chickpea nodulation, growth, maturity, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“among tillage practices deep tillage significantly affected weed density (438 m-2), weeds dry weight (6.4 g m-2), weeds fresh weight (13.5 g m-2), nodules weight (1.15 g plant-1), plant height (83.3 cm), number of branches plant-1 (11), days to maturity (196), grain yield (1447 kg ha-1), biological yield (4155 kg ha-1) and harvest index (37.5 %)”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not significantly affect emergence, flowering, nodule count, pods or grains per pod.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- tillage practicee0
- Outcome
- days to emergence, emergence m-2, days to 50 % floweringe0
- Direction
- non-significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“days to emergence, emergence m-2, days to 50 % flowering, number of nodules, number of pods plant-1, grains pod-1, pods m-2 were non-significantly affected by tillage practice”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Shallow tillage gave the minimum grain yield and other yield traits.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- shallow tillage practicee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- minimume0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The minimum grain yield and other yield related characters were observed in shallow tillage practice.”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium significantly affected chickpea nodule number and weight, height, pods, maturity, grain weight, yields and harvest index.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Potassiume0
- Outcome
- number of nodulese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Potassium had significant impact on number of nodules (16.0 plant-1), nodules weight (1.10 g plant-1), plant height (81.3 cm), number of pods plant-1 (33.5), pods m-2 (837), days to maturity (196), 100 grain weight (25.3 g), grain yield (1483 kg ha-1), biological yield (4244 kg ha-1) and harvest index (37.6 %)”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium did not significantly affect emergence, weeds, branching or flowering time.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Treatment
- Potassiume1
- Outcome
- days to emergence, emergence m-2, weed densitye0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“days to emergence, emergence m-2, weed density, weeds dry weight, weeds fresh weight, number of branches plant-1, days to 50 % flowering were not significantly affected”
e1“Potassium had significant impact”
e2“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
The tillage by potassium interaction was significant only for time to 50% flowering.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- tillage practices and potassium levelse0
- Outcome
- 50 % floweringe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The interaction between tillage practices and potassium levels was significant for only 50 % flowering while non-significant for the rest of parameters.”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep tillage performed better than shallow and medium-deep tillage for yield and yield components.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- deep tillagee0
- Outcome
- yield and yield componentse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- shallow and medium deep tillage practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“deep tillage performed better as compared with shallow and medium deep tillage practices in terms of yield and yield components”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium at 60 kg ha-1 improved chickpea growth and productivity in Peshawar.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Potassium application at the rate of 60 kg ha-1e0
- Outcome
- growth and productivitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Setting
- Peshawar regione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Potassium application at the rate of 60 kg ha-1 improved growth and productivity in Peshawar region”
e1“growth, yield and yield components of chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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 →potassium · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
28 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 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.