Abstract
A Field experiment was conducted at Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore during rabi season of 2019 to study about the changes in the physiological parameters of aerobic rice under different drip fertigation and irrigation levels. Thirteen treatments consists of 75% and 100 % pan evaporation ( two irrigation levels) and 75%, 100% and 125% RDF (three fertigation levels), combination with fermented fish waste (FFW) and fermented egg product (FEP), surface irrigation treatment as a check were arranged in randomized block design and replicated thrice. The result showed that significantly higher leaf area index, SPAD values, crop growth rate, relative growth rate and yield during rabi season 2019 were observed in drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FFW (3 times) than all other treatments. Which was closely related with drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FEP (3 times). The lower grain yield and physiological parameters were noticed in drip fertigation at 75% RDF, 75% PE with FEP (3 times). This study concluded that drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FFW (3 times) suitable for getting higher physiological parameters and grain yield in aerobic rice.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation at 125% RDF with 100% PE and FFW gave significantly higher leaf area index and SPAD values than all other treatments
Verbatim
t0“yield of aerobic rice”
e1“significantly higher leaf area index, SPAD values, crop growth rate, relative growth rate and yield during rabi season 2019 were observed in drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FFW (3 times) than all other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation at 125% RDF with 100% PE and FFW gave significantly higher crop growth rate and relative growth rate than all other treatments
Verbatim
t0“yield of aerobic rice”
e1“significantly higher leaf area index, SPAD values, crop growth rate, relative growth rate and yield during rabi season 2019 were observed in drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FFW (3 times) than all other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation at 125% RDF with 100% PE and FFW gave significantly higher yield than all other treatments
Verbatim
t0“yield of aerobic rice”
e1“significantly higher leaf area index, SPAD values, crop growth rate, relative growth rate and yield during rabi season 2019 were observed in drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FFW (3 times) than all other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation at 125% RDF with 100% PE and FEP was closely related in performance to the FFW treatment
- Taxon
- aerobic ricet0
- Treatment
- drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FEP (3 times)e2
- Outcome
- closely relatede2
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“yield of aerobic rice”
e2“Which was closely related with drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FEP (3 times)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation at 75% RDF with 75% PE and FEP gave lower grain yield and physiological parameters
Verbatim
t0“yield of aerobic rice”
e3“The lower grain yield and physiological parameters were noticed in drip fertigation at 75% RDF, 75% PE with FEP (3 times)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude drip fertigation at 125% RDF with 100% PE and FFW is suitable for higher physiological parameters and grain yield in aerobic rice
Verbatim
e4“drip fertigation at 125% RDF, 100% PE with FFW (3 times) suitable for getting higher physiological parameters and grain yield in aerobic rice”
The same questions in other papers
processing · physiology: pigments · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
irrigation · physiology: pigments · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →processing · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
55 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
84 papers more in this group
See all 88 papers →processing · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
110 papers more in this group
See all 114 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
120 papers more in this group
See all 124 papers →irrigation · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
221 papers in the same direction as this paper · 62 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
287 papers more in this group
See all 291 papers →fertilization · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
669 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
755 papers more in this group
See all 759 papers →irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 201 in the opposite direction · 64 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,167 papers more in this group
See all 1,171 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.