Paper · 1980 · Madras Agricultural Journal

Effect of Irrigation Intervals, Post-sowing Planking and Sowing Methods on Wheat

SHAKTAWAT M.S

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A field experiment with four irrigation intervals and two methods of sowing seeds and drilling fertilizer with and without post sowing planking was conducted in 1970-71 and 1971-72. Higher yield was obtained when irrigation was given at 16 days intervals. Water use efficiency varied with the wheat varieties tested. Post sowing planking was found to be a waste and dispensing with this practice increased the grain yieldby 2.5 q/ha. in wheat.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation given at 16-day intervals gave higher wheat yield.

Treatment
irrigation was given at 16 days intervalse1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
Highere1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“on Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–80 · show in text ↑
e1

“Higher yield was obtained when irrigation was given at 16 days intervals”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 182–254 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water use efficiency varied among the wheat varieties tested.

Material
wheat varieties testede2
Outcome
Water use efficiencye2

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“on Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–80 · show in text ↑
e2

“Water use efficiency varied with the wheat varieties tested”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 256–315 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dispensing with post-sowing planking increased wheat grain yield by 2.5 q/ha.

Treatment
dispensing with this practicee3
Outcome
grain yielde3
Direction
increasede3
Value
2.5 q/hae3
Comparator
Post sowing plankinge3

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“on Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–80 · show in text ↑
e3

“Post sowing planking was found to be a waste and dispensing with this practice increased the grain yieldby 2.5 q/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 317–432 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Post-sowing planking was judged a waste in wheat, so dispensing with it is advised.

Outcome
dispensing with this practicee3

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“on Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–80 · show in text ↑
e3

“Post sowing planking was found to be a waste and dispensing with this practice increased the grain yieldby 2.5 q/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 317–432 · show in text ↑

irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

989 papers: 798 positive, 191 negative or no effect

797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

985 papers more in this group

See all 989 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.