Paper · 2016 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Effect of integrated nutrient management practices on growth and yield of vegetable crops grown as intercrops in coconut (Cocos nucifera) garden

K S NAVEEN KUMAR; H P MAHESWARAPPA; T B BASAVARAJU

5
claims
5
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Investigation was carried out at Horticulture Research and Extension Station, Arasikere, Karnataka, during kharif and summer seasons of 2012-14 to study the performance of different cropping sequences with vegetable crops and effect of integrated nutrient management practices on growth, and yield of vegetable crops under coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) based cropping system (CBCS). The experiment consisting of three cropping sequences of vegetable crops and four integrated nutrient management (INM) practices was carried out in FRBD with 5 replications. The study revealed that growth and yield of all the vegetable crops grown under coconut were significantly influenced by INM practices. Among the INM practices, pooled analysis of yield data indicated that, S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray) recorded significantly higher yield in okra (9.85 tonnes/ha), baby corn (4.55 tonnes/ha), gherkin (74.87 tonnes/ha) and cucumber (6.51 tonnes/ha) when grown as intercrop in coconut plantation.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Integrated nutrient practices significantly influenced vegetable growth and yield under coconut.

Taxon
vegetable cropse0
Treatment
INM practicese0
Outcome
growth and yielde0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“growth and yield of all the vegetable crops grown under coconut were significantly influenced by INM practices.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 579–690 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

S3 gave significantly higher okra yield of 9.85 tonnes/ha.

Treatment
S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
9.85 tonnes/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray) recorded significantly higher yield in okra (9.85 tonnes/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–947 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

S3 gave significantly higher baby corn yield of 4.55 tonnes/ha.

Taxon
baby corne0
Treatment
S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.55 tonnes/hae0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray) recorded significantly higher yield in okra (9.85 tonnes/ha), baby corn (4.55 tonnes/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–975 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

S3 gave significantly higher gherkin yield of 74.87 tonnes/ha.

Taxon
gherkinCucumise0
Treatment
S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
74.87 tonnes/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis
Cucumis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Bff · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray) recorded significantly higher yield in okra (9.85 tonnes/ha), baby corn (4.55 tonnes/ha), gherkin (74.87 tonnes/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–1002 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

S3 gave significantly higher cucumber yield of 6.51 tonnes/ha.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Treatment
S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
6.51 tonnes/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“S3 treatment (5 tonnes FYM+ 50% NPK + 25% N by vermicompost + 25 % N by composted coir pith (CCP)+ IIHR micronutrient spray) recorded significantly higher yield in okra (9.85 tonnes/ha), baby corn (4.55 tonnes/ha), gherkin (74.87 tonnes/ha) and cucumber (6.51 tonnes/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–1032 · show in text ↑

micronutrient · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results differ

13 papers: 10 positive, 3 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

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

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

micronutrient · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

80 papers: 73 positive, 7 negative or no effect

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

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

76 papers more in this group

See all 80 papers →

growing medium · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 9 positive, 3 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

growing medium · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 32 positive, 4 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

growing medium · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

44 papers: 36 positive, 8 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

application · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

73 papers: 65 positive, 8 negative or no effect

64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

69 papers more in this group

See all 73 papers →

application · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results

115 papers: 112 positive, 3 negative or no effect

111 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

111 papers more in this group

See all 115 papers →

fertilization · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

288 papers: 263 positive, 25 negative or no effect

262 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

284 papers more in this group

See all 288 papers →

8 of 13 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.