Abstract
Essential micronutrients are required for humans to sustain proper physiological body processes and a healthy health condition. Micronutrient deficiencies, such as iron, zinc, and iodine, create global health concerns for people. Zinc and iron deficiency are frequent in chickpea growing regions across the world. Bio-fortification of pulse grains, especially with Fe and Zn by agronomic bio-fortification, is the simplest, most practical, and quickest method. During the Rabi season of 2019–20, a field experiment was done at the Bairiya Dhab Research Farm of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar, India, to find out effect on chickpea genotypes when Zn and Fe were added to the soil and the leaves. Two genotypes (GCP-105 and GNG-2264) and seven fertilization treatments (control, 0.5% Zn, 0.5% Fe, soil application of Zn and Fe, 25 and 15 kg/ha, respectively) were used in a split plot design with three replications. The GNG-2264 variety had a significantly higher plant height, yield and yield characteristics, such as number of pods per plant, test weight, seed and straw yield and economics viz. gross return, net return (62860 and 37986 ₹/ha), and B: C ratio (2.52) than GCP-105. Among the fertilization treatments, RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters viz., plant height (59.89 cm), number of pods/plant (22.31), seed yield (1283 kg/ha) and straw yields 2433 kg/ha), and quality parameters such as zinc and iron content in seed (31.84 and 17.40 ppm) and straw (72.26, 21.79 ppm, respectively) and economics in term of gross return, net return, and B: C ratio.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
GNG-2264 had significantly greater height and yield traits than GCP-105.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume2 - Material
- GNG-2264e0
- Outcome
- plant height, yield and yield characteristicse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- GCP-105e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The GNG-2264 variety had a significantly higher plant height, yield and yield characteristics, such as number of pods per plant, test weight, seed and straw yield”
e1“than GCP-105”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
GNG-2264 had higher net and gross returns and benefit cost ratio than GCP-105.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- GNG-2264e2
- Outcome
- gross return, net returne0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 62860 and 37986 ₹/hae0
- Comparator
- GCP-105e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gross return, net return (62860 and 37986 ₹/ha), and B: C ratio (2.52) than GCP-105”
e1“chickpea genotypes”
e2“The GNG-2264 variety had a significantly higher plant height”
Claim · model-written summary
GNG-2264 had a B:C ratio of 2.52.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Material
- GNG-2264e1
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Value
- 2.52e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“B: C ratio (2.52)”
e1“The GNG-2264 variety”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
RDF with foliar zinc and iron significantly increased plant height to 59.89 cm.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 59.89 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters viz., plant height (59.89 cm)”
e1“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The foliar treatment raised pods per plant to 22.31.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee0
- Outcome
- number of pods/plante0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 22.31e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters viz., plant height (59.89 cm), number of pods/plant (22.31)”
e1“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The foliar treatment raised seed yield to 1283 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee1
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 1283 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed yield (1283 kg/ha)”
e1“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The foliar treatment raised straw yield to 2433 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee1
- Outcome
- straw yieldse0
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 2433 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw yields 2433 kg/ha”
e1“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The foliar treatment raised seed zinc content to 31.84 ppm.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee1
- Outcome
- zinc and iron content in seede0
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 31.84 and 17.40 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zinc and iron content in seed (31.84 and 17.40 ppm)”
e1“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The foliar treatment raised straw zinc and iron content to 72.26 and 21.79 ppm.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee1
- Outcome
- strawe0
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 72.26, 21.79 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw (72.26, 21.79 ppm, respectively)”
e1“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
The foliar treatment improved gross return, net return and B:C ratio.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume2
- Treatment
- RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stagee0
- Outcome
- gross return, net return, and B: C ratioe1
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDF + Zn (0.5%) and Fe (0.5%) foliar spraying at the pre-flowering and pod development stage recorded significantly higher growth and yield parameters”
e1“economics in term of gross return, net return, and B: C ratio”
e2“chickpea genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →zinc atom · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →zinc atom · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
66 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
67 papers more in this group
See all 71 papers →iron atom · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →iron atom · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
11 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →zinc atom · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
32 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →application · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →application · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →8 of 12 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.