Abstract
This study aims to determine Effect of Irrigation Methods, Nutrient Management and Intercropping System on Grain Yield, Maize Equivalent Yield, Protein Content and Economics of Maize (Zea mays L.). An experiment was conducted during the rabi season of 2020-21 at Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi (Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar). To study the effect of irrigation methods, nutrient management and intercropping system on grain yield, MEY, protein content and economics of maize (Zea mays L.). The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation. Application of nutrients as par STCR, recorded higher grain yield (9.24 t/ha), MEY (11.15 t/ha), protein content (8.57%), gross returns (206343 ₹/ha) and net returns (134893 ₹/ha) as compared to RDF and SSNM whereas, highest B: C ratio was noticed under RDF (1.94). Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively. Overall results revealed that irrigation applied through drip method, nutrient management through STCR and maize + vegetable pea intercropping system is a promising option for higher productivity, quality and profitability of maize.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised grain yield to 9.42 t/ha over furrow and surface irrigation.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 9.42 t/hae0
- Comparator
- furrow and surface irrigatione0
Zea maysNot reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised maize equivalent yield to 11.67 t/ha.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- MEYe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11.67 t/hae0
- Comparator
- furrow and surface irrigatione0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised protein content to 8.7%.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- protein contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 8.7%e0
- Comparator
- furrow and surface irrigatione0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised gross returns to 215942 ₹/ha.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- gross returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 215942 ₹/hae0
- Comparator
- furrow and surface irrigatione0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised net returns to 146679 ₹/ha.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 146679 ₹/hae0
- Comparator
- furrow and surface irrigatione0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised benefit-cost ratio to 2.11.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione0
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.11e0
- Comparator
- furrow and surface irrigatione0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growing of maize under drip irrigation recorded significantly higher grain yield (9.42 t/ha), MEY (11.67 t/ha), protein content (8.7%), gross returns (215942 ₹/ha), net returns (146679 ₹/ha) and B: C ratio (2.11) over furrow and surface irrigation.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient management raised grain yield to 9.24 t/ha.
- Treatment
- Application of nutrients as par STCRe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 9.24 t/hae0
- Comparator
- RDF and SSNMe0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of nutrients as par STCR, recorded higher grain yield (9.24 t/ha), MEY (11.15 t/ha), protein content (8.57%), gross returns (206343 ₹/ha) and net returns (134893 ₹/ha) as compared to RDF and SSNM”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient management raised maize equivalent yield to 11.15 t/ha.
- Treatment
- Application of nutrients as par STCRe0
- Outcome
- MEYe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11.15 t/hae0
- Comparator
- RDF and SSNMe0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of nutrients as par STCR, recorded higher grain yield (9.24 t/ha), MEY (11.15 t/ha), protein content (8.57%), gross returns (206343 ₹/ha) and net returns (134893 ₹/ha) as compared to RDF and SSNM”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient management raised protein content to 8.57%.
- Treatment
- Application of nutrients as par STCRe0
- Outcome
- protein contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 8.57%e0
- Comparator
- RDF and SSNMe0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of nutrients as par STCR, recorded higher grain yield (9.24 t/ha), MEY (11.15 t/ha), protein content (8.57%), gross returns (206343 ₹/ha) and net returns (134893 ₹/ha) as compared to RDF and SSNM”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient management raised gross returns to 206343 ₹/ha.
- Treatment
- Application of nutrients as par STCRe0
- Outcome
- gross returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 206343 ₹/hae0
- Comparator
- RDF and SSNMe0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of nutrients as par STCR, recorded higher grain yield (9.24 t/ha), MEY (11.15 t/ha), protein content (8.57%), gross returns (206343 ₹/ha) and net returns (134893 ₹/ha) as compared to RDF and SSNM”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient management raised net returns to 134893 ₹/ha.
- Treatment
- Application of nutrients as par STCRe0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 134893 ₹/hae0
- Comparator
- RDF and SSNMe0
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of nutrients as par STCR, recorded higher grain yield (9.24 t/ha), MEY (11.15 t/ha), protein content (8.57%), gross returns (206343 ₹/ha) and net returns (134893 ₹/ha) as compared to RDF and SSNM”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
RDF produced the highest benefit-cost ratio, 1.94.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest B: C ratio was noticed under RDF (1.94)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping increased maize grain yield 5.50% over lentil.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping increased maize grain yield 12.14% over rajmash.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping increased maize equivalent yield 18.16% over lentil.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping increased maize equivalent yield 18.84% over rajmash.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping increased maize protein content 4.58% over lentil.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping increased maize protein content 7.87% over rajmash.
Not reportedSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increment in grain yield (5.50 % and 12.14 %), MEY (18.16% and 18.84%), protein content (4.58 % and 7.87%), gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetable pea intercropping improved gross returns, net returns, and benefit-cost ratio over lentil.
- Treatment
- vegetable peae0
- Outcome
- gross returnse0
- Value
- 15.85%e0
- Qualifier
- 19.8% and 21.59%e0
- Comparator
- lentile0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gross returns (15.85% and 15.37%), net returns (19.8% and 21.59%) and B: C ratio (13.10% and 19.41%) were observed under vegetable pea over lentil and rajmash intercropping respectively.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend drip irrigation, STCR nutrients and maize–vegetable pea intercropping for higher productivity, quality and profitability.
- Treatment
- irrigation applied through drip method, nutrient management through STCR and maize + vegetable pea intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- higher productivity, quality and profitability of maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation applied through drip method, nutrient management through STCR and maize + vegetable pea intercropping system is a promising option for higher productivity, quality and profitability of maize.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →light · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →light · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.