Abstract
A field experiment was conducted on Typic Ustochrept soil at the Crop Research Centre of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, for two years (2014–15 to 2015–16) to evaluate site specific nutrient management (SSNM) against state recommendation (SR), integration of SSNM and SR with crop residue and farm yard manure. In terms of crop growth yield, nutrient uptake and economics, SSNM had significantly higher growth parameters, viz. number of tillers/m2 and dry matter accumulation as compared to SR in both rice and wheat crops. Different yield attributes, viz. number of grains/panicle or spike, test weight of rice and wheat were also higher with SSNM. SSNM out yielded for rice, wheat and rice-wheat system (RWS) productivity by 10.3%, 14.1% and 11.9%. System N, P and K uptake under SSNM was also higher by 24.36, 9.55 and 36.01 kg/ha, respectively, compared to SR. An additional income of `12953/ha over SR and maximum return/rupee invested (`2.50) was also recorded with SSNM. Recycling of 5 t/ha rice and wheat straw residue along with SSNM had added advantage.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM significantly increased tiller number and dry matter accumulation compared with SR in rice and wheat.
- Taxon
- rice and wheat
Oryza sativa
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- number of tillers/m2 and dry matter accumulatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- SRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SSNM had significantly higher growth parameters, viz. number of tillers/m2 and dry matter accumulation as compared to SR in both rice and wheat crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM increased grains per panicle or spike and test weight in rice and wheat.
- Taxon
- rice and wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- number of grains/panicle or spike, test weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Different yield attributes, viz. number of grains/panicle or spike, test weight of rice and wheat were also higher with SSNM.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice productivity under SSNM was 10.3% higher than under SR.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SSNM out yielded for rice, wheat and rice-wheat system (RWS) productivity by 10.3%, 14.1% and 11.9%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat productivity under SSNM was 14.1% higher than under SR.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SSNM out yielded for rice, wheat and rice-wheat system (RWS) productivity by 10.3%, 14.1% and 11.9%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice-wheat system productivity under SSNM was 11.9% higher than under SR.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“SSNM out yielded for rice, wheat and rice-wheat system (RWS) productivity by 10.3%, 14.1% and 11.9%.”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM increased system nitrogen uptake by 24.36 kg/ha compared with SR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- Ne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 24.36, 9.55 and 36.01 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- SRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“System N, P and K uptake under SSNM was also higher by 24.36, 9.55 and 36.01 kg/ha, respectively, compared to SR.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM increased system phosphorus uptake by 9.55 kg/ha compared with SR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- Pe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 9.55 and 36.01 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- SRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“System N, P and K uptake under SSNM was also higher by 24.36, 9.55 and 36.01 kg/ha, respectively, compared to SR.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM increased system potassium uptake by 36.01 kg/ha compared with SR.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“System N, P and K uptake under SSNM was also higher by 24.36, 9.55 and 36.01 kg/ha, respectively, compared to SR.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM yielded additional income of `12953/ha over SR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SSNMe0
- Outcome
- incomee0
- Direction
- additionale0
- Value
- `12953/hae0
- Comparator
- SRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An additional income of `12953/ha over SR and maximum return/rupee invested (`2.50) was also recorded with SSNM.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
SSNM produced a maximum return per rupee invested of `2.50.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An additional income of `12953/ha over SR and maximum return/rupee invested (`2.50) was also recorded with SSNM.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Recycling 5 t/ha rice and wheat straw residue alongside SSNM had an added advantage.
- Taxon
- rice and wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Recycling of 5 t/ha rice and wheat straw residue along with SSNMe0
- Outcome
- added advantagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Recycling of 5 t/ha rice and wheat straw residue along with SSNM had added advantage.”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →climate site · quality: grain · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →climate site · organism · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →climate site · nutrient: content · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →fertilization · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
97 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
121 papers more in this group
See all 125 papers →fertilization · organism · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
131 papers more in this group
See all 135 papers →fertilization · quality: grain · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
144 papers more in this group
See all 148 papers →climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
150 papers more in this group
See all 154 papers →8 of 14 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.