Abstract
A long-term field experiment on conservation agriculture (CA) was initiated in sandy loam soil of Indo-Gangetic plain in 2008 at Research Farm of ICAR-IARI, New Delhi with 3 tillage practices, i.e. permanent bed (PB), zero-tillage (ZT) and conventional tillage (CT) in main plots and four maize-based cropping systems, i.e. maize-wheat-mungbean (MWMb), maize-chickpea-sesbania (MCS), maize-mustard-mungbean (MMuMb), maize-maize-sesbania (MMS) in sub-plots, in a split- plot design with three replications to evaluate the long-term effects of CA practices on maize yield and soil fertility under maize-based cropping systems. The current study was undertaken in kharif maize 2015 after completion of seven years of experimentation. Soil fertility parameters like mineral nitrogen (N) (NO3 – and NH4 +), available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) were determined from 0–5, 5–15 and 15–30 cm of soil depths. The available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) were higher under PB and ZT compared with CT. Among the cropping systems, MCS and MWMb performed equally in relation to nutrient availability. The grain yield of maize was significantly higher under PB (5.55 t/ha) and ZT (5.49 t/ha) as compared to CT (4.81 t/ha), whereas MCS and MWMb performed better in term of maize productivity as compared with MMuMb and MMS. Thus, the long-term study suggested that ZT and PB under diversified cropping systems such as MWMb and MCS could be the best agricultural practices for sustainable production as well as nutrient availability in maize-based cropping systems.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
PB increased soil available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) versus CT.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) were higher under PB and ZT compared with CT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
PB increased soil micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) versus CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) were higher under PB and ZT compared with CT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
ZT increased soil available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) versus CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) were higher under PB and ZT compared with CT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
ZT increased soil micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) versus CT.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The available macronutrients (N, P, K and S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu) were higher under PB and ZT compared with CT.”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
MCS and MWMb had equal nutrient availability.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the cropping systems, MCS and MWMb performed equally in relation to nutrient availability.”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
PB increased maize grain yield to 5.55 t/ha versus CT.
- Treatment
- PBe0
- Outcome
- grain yield of maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.55 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 4.81 t/hae0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield of maize was significantly higher under PB (5.55 t/ha) and ZT (5.49 t/ha) as compared to CT (4.81 t/ha), whereas MCS and MWMb performed better in term of maize productivity as compared with MMuMb and MMS.”
Claim · model-written summary
ZT increased maize grain yield to 5.49 t/ha versus CT.
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- grain yield of maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.49 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 4.81 t/hae0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield of maize was significantly higher under PB (5.55 t/ha) and ZT (5.49 t/ha) as compared to CT (4.81 t/ha), whereas MCS and MWMb performed better in term of maize productivity as compared with MMuMb and MMS.”
Claim · model-written summary
MCS improved maize productivity versus MMuMb and MMS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield of maize was significantly higher under PB (5.55 t/ha) and ZT (5.49 t/ha) as compared to CT (4.81 t/ha), whereas MCS and MWMb performed better in term of maize productivity as compared with MMuMb and MMS.”
Claim · model-written summary
MWMb improved maize productivity versus MMuMb and MMS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield of maize was significantly higher under PB (5.55 t/ha) and ZT (5.49 t/ha) as compared to CT (4.81 t/ha), whereas MCS and MWMb performed better in term of maize productivity as compared with MMuMb and MMS.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended ZT and PB in diversified MWMb and MCS systems for production and nutrient availability.
- Outcome
- best agricultural practices for sustainable production as well as nutrient availabilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZT and PB under diversified cropping systems such as MWMb and MCS could be the best agricultural practices for sustainable production as well as nutrient availability in maize-based cropping systems”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.