Abstract
The present study aimed to determine the effect of tillage and brown manuring in sandy loam soil under maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) sequence. Six treatments implemented were Conventional tillage (CT); Deep tillage once in three years (DT); Conventional tillage with integrated nutrient management (CT-INM); Conventional tillage with brown manuring in maize + cowpea (1:2) and wheat + pea (4:1) ratio (CT-BM); Conservation tillage (CST) ; Conservation tillage with brown manuring (CST-BM). Maize equivalent yield (MEY) was 51.8% higher in CT-INM, over control; DT, CST, CST-BM and CT-BM produced 4.92, 14.1, 30.8 and 39.3 % higher yield over control (CT), respectively. The mean soil organic carbon (SOC) was 12.1, 11.3 and 17.7% higher under CT-BM, CST, CST-BM treatments, respectively, over the control (CT) in surface soil. Brown manuring in conjunction with both conventional (CT-BM) and conservation tillage (CST-BM) reduced soil loss to the extent of 91.70% and 93.32% as compared to CT. The highest net return per rupee of investment was recorded in CT-INM, being lowest in DT.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
CT-INM raised maize equivalent yield by 51.8%.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize equivalent yield (MEY) was 51.8% higher in CT-INM, over control; DT, CST, CST-BM and CT-BM produced 4.92, 14.1, 30.8 and 39.3 % higher yield over control (CT), respectively.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
DT raised maize equivalent yield by 4.92.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize equivalent yield (MEY) was 51.8% higher in CT-INM, over control; DT, CST, CST-BM and CT-BM produced 4.92, 14.1, 30.8 and 39.3 % higher yield over control (CT), respectively.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CST raised maize equivalent yield by 14.1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize equivalent yield (MEY) was 51.8% higher in CT-INM, over control; DT, CST, CST-BM and CT-BM produced 4.92, 14.1, 30.8 and 39.3 % higher yield over control (CT), respectively.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CST-BM raised maize equivalent yield by 30.8.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize equivalent yield (MEY) was 51.8% higher in CT-INM, over control; DT, CST, CST-BM and CT-BM produced 4.92, 14.1, 30.8 and 39.3 % higher yield over control (CT), respectively.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-BM raised maize equivalent yield by 39.3 %.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize equivalent yield (MEY) was 51.8% higher in CT-INM, over control; DT, CST, CST-BM and CT-BM produced 4.92, 14.1, 30.8 and 39.3 % higher yield over control (CT), respectively.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-BM raised surface soil organic carbon by 12.1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean soil organic carbon (SOC) was 12.1, 11.3 and 17.7% higher under CT-BM, CST, CST-BM treatments, respectively, over the control (CT) in surface soil.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CST raised surface soil organic carbon by 11.3.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean soil organic carbon (SOC) was 12.1, 11.3 and 17.7% higher under CT-BM, CST, CST-BM treatments, respectively, over the control (CT) in surface soil.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CST-BM raised surface soil organic carbon by 17.7%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean soil organic carbon (SOC) was 12.1, 11.3 and 17.7% higher under CT-BM, CST, CST-BM treatments, respectively, over the control (CT) in surface soil.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-BM reduced soil loss by 91.70%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Brown manuring in conjunction with both conventional (CT-BM) and conservation tillage (CST-BM) reduced soil loss to the extent of 91.70% and 93.32% as compared to CT.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CST-BM reduced soil loss by 93.32%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Brown manuring in conjunction with both conventional (CT-BM) and conservation tillage (CST-BM) reduced soil loss to the extent of 91.70% and 93.32% as compared to CT.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net return was highest in CT-INM.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest net return per rupee of investment was recorded in CT-INM, being lowest in DT.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net return was lowest in DT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest net return per rupee of investment was recorded in CT-INM, being lowest in DT.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →fertilization · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 papers →fertilization · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
302 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
335 papers more in this group
See all 339 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.