Abstract
Laser land levelling is expanding rapidly in the rice-wheat (RW) and maize-wheat (MW) systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India and Pakistan. Current practice is to level to zero (0%) gradient, whereas a small gradient (e.g. 0.1%) is typically used in developed countries. Therefore, experiments were conducted in farmers’ plots (~15 m x 40 m) in the Eastern Gangetic Plains to evaluate laser levelling with a 0.1% gradient in comparison with 0% and farmer levelling practice (FL). The study was conducted over two years in RW and MW systems. In the MW system, raised beds in plots lasered with 0% and 0.1% gradients were also evaluated. Laser levelling with 0% gradient significantly reduced irrigation amount and/or increased irrigation water productivity (WPi) in all crops/systems grown on the flat compared to FL except for wheat in the MW system. While there was a consistent trend for higher yield with a 0% gradient compared with FL, the differences were not significant in any crop/system. For the RW system, the results suggest no to marginal benefits in irrigation amount and WPi from levelling with a 0.1% gradient in comparison with 0% gradient. In that system, by far the bigger gains were from changing from FL to laser levelling with 0% gradient. This resulted in substantial reductions in irrigation amount, which greatly increased WPi in both crops (by ~40%), while yield was not affected. Rice grown with FL was not profitable, but lasering with 0% gradient significantly increased gross margin for rice, wheat and the total RW system. As for the RW system, levelling to 0% with a flat configuration significantly increased WPi of both crops in the MW system compared to FL, but by a lesser proportion. Raised beds significantly increased yield of maize by 8% (0.5 t ha−1), reduced irrigation amount by 20% (40 mm) and increased WPi by 34% (1.0 kg m−3) in comparison with the laser levelled flat plots. Gross margin of the MW system on beds was 17–20% higher than FL, and gross margin with beds on a 0.1% gradient was significantly higher than either gradient on the flat. The results suggest that the gains from levelling with a 0.1% gradient compared to 0% are marginal; however, this may change if the goal of consolidation of small farmer plots into larger fields becomes a reality provided there is a proportionate increase in irrigation flow rates, and ability to drain.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-gradient laser levelling significantly reduced irrigation amount in flat-grown crops compared with farmer levelling, except wheat in the maize-wheat system.
Verbatim
e0“Laser levelling with 0% gradient significantly reduced irrigation amount and/or increased irrigation water productivity (WPi) in all crops/systems grown on the flat compared to FL except for wheat in the MW system”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-gradient laser levelling significantly increased irrigation water productivity in flat-grown crops compared with farmer levelling, except wheat in the maize-wheat system.
Verbatim
e0“Laser levelling with 0% gradient significantly reduced irrigation amount and/or increased irrigation water productivity (WPi) in all crops/systems grown on the flat compared to FL except for wheat in the MW system”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-gradient levelling showed a nonsignificant trend toward higher yield than farmer levelling across crops and systems.
Verbatim
e0“there was a consistent trend for higher yield with a 0% gradient compared with FL, the differences were not significant in any crop/system”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
In rice-wheat systems, 0.1% gradient levelling gave no to marginal benefit in irrigation amount and water productivity relative to 0% gradient.
Verbatim
e0“For the RW system, the results suggest no to marginal benefits in irrigation amount and WPi from levelling with a 0.1% gradient in comparison with 0% gradient”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
In rice-wheat systems, zero-gradient laser levelling substantially reduced irrigation amount relative to farmer levelling.
Verbatim
e0“changing from FL to laser levelling with 0% gradient. This resulted in substantial reductions in irrigation amount”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
In rice-wheat systems, zero-gradient levelling increased irrigation water productivity in both crops by about 40%.
Verbatim
e0“greatly increased WPi in both crops (by ~40%)”
e1“changing from FL to laser levelling with 0% gradient”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield in the rice-wheat system was unaffected by zero-gradient laser levelling.
Verbatim
e0“changing from FL to laser levelling with 0% gradient. This resulted in substantial reductions in irrigation amount, which greatly increased WPi in both crops (by ~40%), while yield was not affected”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice grown under farmer levelling was not profitable.
- Taxon
- Rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- FLe0
- Outcome
- profitablee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rice grown with FL was not profitable”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-gradient lasering significantly increased gross margin for rice, wheat and the rice-wheat system.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“lasering with 0% gradient significantly increased gross margin for rice, wheat and the total RW system”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-gradient flat levelling significantly increased irrigation water productivity of both crops in the maize-wheat system relative to farmer levelling.
Verbatim
e0“levelling to 0% with a flat configuration significantly increased WPi of both crops in the MW system compared to FL, but by a lesser proportion”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds increased maize yield by 8% relative to laser-levelled flat plots.
- Treatment
- Raised bedse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8% (0.5 t ha−1)e0
- Comparator
- laser levelled flat plotse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Raised beds significantly increased yield of maize by 8% (0.5 t ha−1), reduced irrigation amount by 20% (40 mm) and increased WPi by 34% (1.0 kg m−3) in comparison with the laser levelled flat plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds reduced maize irrigation amount by 20% relative to laser-levelled flat plots.
- Treatment
- Raised bedse0
- Outcome
- irrigation amounte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 20% (40 mm)e0
- Comparator
- laser levelled flat plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Raised beds significantly increased yield of maize by 8% (0.5 t ha−1), reduced irrigation amount by 20% (40 mm) and increased WPi by 34% (1.0 kg m−3) in comparison with the laser levelled flat plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds increased maize irrigation water productivity by 34% relative to laser-levelled flat plots.
- Treatment
- Raised bedse0
- Outcome
- WPie0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 34% (1.0 kg m−3)e0
- Comparator
- laser levelled flat plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Raised beds significantly increased yield of maize by 8% (0.5 t ha−1), reduced irrigation amount by 20% (40 mm) and increased WPi by 34% (1.0 kg m−3) in comparison with the laser levelled flat plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-wheat system gross margin on beds was 17–20% higher than farmer levelling.
Verbatim
e0“Gross margin of the MW system on beds was 17–20% higher than FL”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Beds on a 0.1% gradient had significantly higher gross margin than flat plots at either gradient.
Verbatim
e0“gross margin with beds on a 0.1% gradient was significantly higher than either gradient on the flat”
t0“rice-wheat and maize-wheat cropping systems”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.