Paper · 2023 · Madras Agricultural Journal

Nutrient Uptake and Post-Harvest Soil Nutrient Status of Extra Long StapleCottonas Influenced by Establishment Methods, Intercropping and Nutrient Management

Monicaa M; Vaiyapuri K; Sakthivel N; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at Eastern Block Farm, Department of Agronomy, TNAU, Coimbatore, during the summer of 2019 with the objective of finding outthe nutrient uptakeandthe postharvest soil nutrient statusof Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton under methods of crop establishment, intercropping and nutrient management. The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design with three replications. The treatments consisted,viz.T1: Transplanting + Green gram + 75% RDF, T2 : Transplanting + Black gram + 75% RDF, T3 : Transplanting + Onion + 75% RDF, T4 : Transplanting + Green gram + 100% RDF, T5 : Transplanting + Intercrop with Black gram + 100% RDF, T6 : Transplanting + Onion + 100% RDF, T7 : Transplanting + Green gram + 125% RDF, T8 : Transplanting + Black gram + 125% RDF, T9 : Transplanting + Onion + 125% RDF, T10 : Transplanting + 100% RDF, T11 : Direct seeding + Recommended package of practices. Nutrient uptake was higher in transplanted cotton intercropped with black gram followed by thegreen gram with the application of 125% RDF followed by 100% RDF which was significantly influenced by crop establishment techniques, intercropping and different doses of fertilizer level.Available soil nutrients were higher in direct-seeded cotton compared to transplanted cotton

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Transplanted cotton intercropped with black gram had the highest nutrient uptake under 125% RDF.

Treatment
transplanted cotton intercropped with black grame0
Outcome
Nutrient uptakee0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
125% RDFe0
Comparator
thegreen grame0

Not reportedValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nutrient uptake was higher in transplanted cotton intercropped with black gram followed by thegreen gram with the application of 125% RDF followed by 100% RDF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 917–1075 · show in text ↑
e1

“Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 218–248 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 125% RDF dose gave higher uptake than 100% RDF in the reported intercropping comparisons.

Treatment
125% RDFe0
Outcome
Nutrient uptakee1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
100% RDFe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with the application of 125% RDF followed by 100% RDF”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1075 · show in text ↑
e1

“Nutrient uptake was higher in transplanted cotton intercropped with black gram followed by thegreen gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 917–1021 · show in text ↑
e2

“Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 218–248 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Available soil nutrients were higher after direct seeding than after transplanting cotton.

Treatment
direct-seeded cottone0
Outcome
Available soil nutrientse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
transplanted cottone0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Available soil nutrients were higher in direct-seeded cotton compared to transplanted cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1199–1291 · show in text ↑

Vigna mungo · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

intercropping · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

131 papers: 121 positive, 10 negative or no effect

120 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

127 papers more in this group

See all 131 papers →

transplanting · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.