Abstract
A field experiment was conducted under long-term conservation agriculture (CA)-based maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Tricum aestivum L.)-mungbean (MWMb) system at ICAR- IARI, New Delhi (2017-18 and 2018-19) in split-plot design to compute the yields, economic, water and energy use-efficiency. There were 3-tillage treatment in main-plots and 4-nutrient management options in sub-plots with 3-replications. Results of present study showed that the grain yield of maize was 21.1% higher in CA-based permanent bed (PB) than conventional till (CT) plots. Net returns and net benefit cost ratio in PB plots was higher by 46.1 and 55.4% compared to CT, respectively (2-year mean basis). Two year mean basis water use-efficiency (WUE), net energy output and energy use-efficiency (EUE) were higher by 17.0, 26.3 and 12.5% in PB plots than CT. No significant effect of tillage was observed on N, P and K content (grains and stover). However, the total N, P and K uptake in maize grains and stover was higher by 23.6, 24.5 and 22.4% under PB than CT plots, respectively. Among nutrient management options; 2-year mean basis maize grain yield was 31.6 and 29.7% higher in Green Seeker (GS) guided-N and site specific nutrient management (SSNM) plots than farmers fertilizer practice (FFP), respectively. Net returns and BC ratio were also higher by 51.4-53.4% and 41.35-42.6% in GS guided-N and SSNM than FFP plots, respectively. WUE, net energy output and EUE were also significantly higher in GS guided-N treatment than FFP. Total N, P and K uptake were also significantly higher in GS guided-N and SSNM plots compared to FFP.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased maize grain yield by 21.1% over conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- CA-based permanent bed (PB)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 21.1%e0
- Comparator
- conventional till (CT)e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the grain yield of maize was 21.1% higher in CA-based permanent bed (PB) than conventional till (CT) plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased net returns by 46.1% over conventional tillage on a two-year mean basis.
- Treatment
- PBe0
- Outcome
- Net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 46.1e0
- Qualifier
- 2-year mean basise0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and net benefit cost ratio in PB plots was higher by 46.1 and 55.4% compared to CT, respectively (2-year mean basis).”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased net benefit cost ratio by 55.4% over conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and net benefit cost ratio in PB plots was higher by 46.1 and 55.4% compared to CT, respectively (2-year mean basis).”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased water use efficiency by 17.0% over conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
e0“Two year mean basis water use-efficiency (WUE), net energy output and energy use-efficiency (EUE) were higher by 17.0, 26.3 and 12.5% in PB plots than CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased net energy output by 26.3% over conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Two year mean basis water use-efficiency (WUE), net energy output and energy use-efficiency (EUE) were higher by 17.0, 26.3 and 12.5% in PB plots than CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased energy use efficiency by 12.5% over conventional tillage.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Two year mean basis water use-efficiency (WUE), net energy output and energy use-efficiency (EUE) were higher by 17.0, 26.3 and 12.5% in PB plots than CT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not significantly affect grain and stover N, P and K content.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
e0“No significant effect of tillage was observed on N, P and K content (grains and stover).”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased total maize N uptake by 23.6% over conventional tillage.
- Organ / stage
- grains and stovere0
- Treatment
- PBe0
- Outcome
- total Ne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 23.6e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the total N, P and K uptake in maize grains and stover was higher by 23.6, 24.5 and 22.4% under PB than CT plots, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased total maize P uptake by 24.5% over conventional tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the total N, P and K uptake in maize grains and stover was higher by 23.6, 24.5 and 22.4% under PB than CT plots, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent beds increased total maize K uptake by 22.4% over conventional tillage.
- Organ / stage
- grains and stovere0
- Treatment
- PBe0
- Outcome
- K uptakee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 22.4%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the total N, P and K uptake in maize grains and stover was higher by 23.6, 24.5 and 22.4% under PB than CT plots, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Green Seeker guided nitrogen increased maize grain yield by 31.6% over farmers fertilizer practice.
- Treatment
- Green Seeker (GS) guided-Ne0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 31.6e0
- Comparator
- farmers fertilizer practice (FFP)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“2-year mean basis maize grain yield was 31.6 and 29.7% higher in Green Seeker (GS) guided-N and site specific nutrient management (SSNM) plots than farmers fertilizer practice (FFP), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Site specific nutrient management increased maize grain yield by 29.7% over farmers fertilizer practice.
- Treatment
- site specific nutrient management (SSNM)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 29.7%e0
- Comparator
- farmers fertilizer practice (FFP)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“2-year mean basis maize grain yield was 31.6 and 29.7% higher in Green Seeker (GS) guided-N and site specific nutrient management (SSNM) plots than farmers fertilizer practice (FFP), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
GS guided-N increased net returns, within the reported 51.4–53.4% range relative to FFP.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and BC ratio were also higher by 51.4-53.4% and 41.35-42.6% in GS guided-N and SSNM than FFP plots, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM increased net returns, within the reported 51.4–53.4% range relative to FFP.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and BC ratio were also higher by 51.4-53.4% and 41.35-42.6% in GS guided-N and SSNM than FFP plots, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
GS guided-N increased BC ratio, within the reported 41.35–42.6% range relative to FFP.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and BC ratio were also higher by 51.4-53.4% and 41.35-42.6% in GS guided-N and SSNM than FFP plots, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM increased BC ratio, within the reported 41.35–42.6% range relative to FFP.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and BC ratio were also higher by 51.4-53.4% and 41.35-42.6% in GS guided-N and SSNM than FFP plots, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
GS guided-N significantly increased water use efficiency, net energy output and energy use efficiency relative to FFP.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
e0“WUE, net energy output and EUE were also significantly higher in GS guided-N treatment than FFP.”
Claim · model-written summary
GS guided-N significantly increased total N, P and K uptake relative to FFP.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
e0“Total N, P and K uptake were also significantly higher in GS guided-N and SSNM plots compared to FFP.”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM significantly increased total N, P and K uptake relative to FFP.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
e0“Total N, P and K uptake were also significantly higher in GS guided-N and SSNM plots compared to FFP.”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →climate site · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
101 papers in the same direction as this paper · 73 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.