Paper · 2022 · Plants

No-Tillage with Residue Retention and Foliar Sulphur Nutrition Enhances Productivity, Mineral Biofortification and Crude Protein in Rainfed Pearl Millet under Typic Haplustepts: Elucidating the Responses Imposed on an Eight-Year Long-Term Experiment

Ankit; Ram Swaroop Bana; Kuldeep Singh Rana; et al.

9
claims
16
verbatim quotes
30
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Yield limitation and widespread sulphur (S) deficiency in pearl-millet-nurturing dryland soils has emerged as a serious threat to crop productivity and quality. Among diverse pathways to tackle moisture and nutrient stress in rainfed ecologies, conservation agriculture (CA) and foliar nutrition have the greatest potential due to their economic and environmentally friendly nature. Therefore, to understand ammonium thiosulphate (ATS)-mediated foliar S nutrition effects on yield, protein content, mineral biofortification, and sulphur economy of rainfed pearl millet under diverse crop establishment systems, a field study was undertaken. The results highlighted that pearl millet grain and protein yield was significantly higher under no-tillage +3 t/ha crop residue mulching (NTCRM) as compared to no-tillage without mulch (NoTill) and conventional tillage (ConvTill), whereas the stover yield under NTCRM and ConvTill remained at par. Likewise, grain and stover yield in foliar S application using ATS 10 mL/L_twice was 19.5% and 13.2% greater over no S application. The sulphur management strategy of foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twice resulted in significant improvement in grain protein content, protein yield, micronutrient fortification, and net returns (₹ 54.6 × 1000) over the control. Overall, ATS-mediated foliar S nutrition can be an alternate pathway to S management in pearl millet for yield enhancement, micronutrient biofortification and grain protein content increase under ConvTill, as well as under the new NTCRM systems.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

NTCRM significantly increased grain and protein yield relative to NoTill and ConvTill.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment
no-tillage +3 t/ha crop residue mulching (NTCRM)e0
Outcome
grain and protein yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
no-tillage without mulch (NoTill) and conventional tillage (ConvTill)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“pearl millet grain and protein yield was significantly higher under no-tillage +3 t/ha crop residue mulching (NTCRM) as compared to no-tillage without mulch (NoTill) and conventional tillage (ConvTill)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–871 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stover yield under NTCRM and ConvTill remained at par.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
NTCRMe0
Outcome
stover yielde0
Direction
remained at pare0
Comparator
ConvTille0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the stover yield under NTCRM and ConvTill remained at par.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 881–939 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ATS foliar application raised grain yield by 19.5% over no S.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
foliar S application using ATS 10 mL/L_twicee0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
greatere0
Value
19.5%e0
Comparator
no S applicatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grain and stover yield in foliar S application using ATS 10 mL/L_twice was 19.5% and 13.2% greater over no S application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1071 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ATS foliar application raised stover yield by 13.2% over no S.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
foliar S application using ATS 10 mL/L_twicee0
Outcome
stover yielde0
Direction
greatere0
Value
13.2%e0
Comparator
no S applicatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grain and stover yield in foliar S application using ATS 10 mL/L_twice was 19.5% and 13.2% greater over no S application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1071 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar ATS significantly improved grain protein content over control.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twicee0
Outcome
grain protein contente0
Direction
improvemente0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twice resulted in significant improvement in grain protein content, protein yield, micronutrient fortification, and net returns (₹ 54.6 × 1000) over the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1295 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar ATS significantly improved protein yield over control.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twicee0
Outcome
protein yielde0
Direction
improvemente0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twice resulted in significant improvement in grain protein content, protein yield, micronutrient fortification, and net returns (₹ 54.6 × 1000) over the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1295 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar ATS significantly improved micronutrient fortification over control.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twicee0
Outcome
micronutrient fortificatione0
Direction
improvemente0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twice resulted in significant improvement in grain protein content, protein yield, micronutrient fortification, and net returns (₹ 54.6 × 1000) over the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1295 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar ATS significantly improved net returns over control.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
Treatment
foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twicee0
Outcome
net returnse0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
₹ 54.6 × 1000e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar-applied ATS 10 mL/L_twice resulted in significant improvement in grain protein content, protein yield, micronutrient fortification, and net returns (₹ 54.6 × 1000) over the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1295 · show in text ↑
e1

“pearl millet grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–688 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose ATS foliar nutrition as an alternative sulphur management pathway for pearl millet.

Taxon
pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Outcome
alternate pathway to S managemente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“ATS-mediated foliar S nutrition can be an alternate pathway to S management in pearl millet for yield enhancement, micronutrient biofortification and grain protein content increase under ConvTill, as well as under the new NTCRM systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1541 · show in text ↑

sulfur atom · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results differ

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

ammonium thiosulfate · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

mulching · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results differ

19 papers: 17 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 17 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

organic · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 28 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

tillage · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

37 papers: 34 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 papers →

application · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

61 papers: 59 positive, 2 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

57 papers more in this group

See all 61 papers →

application · molecular: metabolites · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

organic · quality: protein · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

8 of 11 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.