Abstract
The field experiment on “Effect of tillage, crop residue management and nutrient levels on energetics, microbial growth, dehydrogenase activity, weed parameters, quality parameters and soil physico-chemical properties of maize (Zea mays L.)” was conducted during rabi season of 2022-23 at Maize Research Centre, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agriculture University, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. The experiment comprised of 12 treatment combinations laid out in a split–plot design with three replications. The main–plot treatments included four different tillage practices:M1-Conventional tillage (Plough + Cultivator + Rotovator), M2-Residue incorporation (After 10 days of spreading the haulms, only rotovator was run), M3- Residue incorporation (After spreading the haulms, microbial consortium was sprayed and after 10 days only rotovator was run) and M4- Zero-tillage (Only microbial consortium was sprayed on the haulms). Sub–plot treatments included three nutrient levels: N1- 100% RDF (240-80-80 N-P2O5-K2O kg ha-1), N2: 100% RDN & P and 50% RDK (240-80-40 N-P2O5-K2O kg ha-1), and N3: 87.5% of RDN, 75% RDP and 75% RDK (210-60-60 N-P2O5-K2O kg ha-1). Results revealed that, among the tillage practices, residue incorporation (M3) had recorded significantly higher total microbial population, dehydrogenase activity and post-harvest soil available NPK of maize and lowest weed density and weed dry matter and it was on par with zero-tillage (M4) whereas all the parameters were significantly lower in conventional tillage (M1). However, Energy indices viz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energy, energy productivity, energy intensiveness was found to be the best in M1 -conventional tillage. Among the different nutrient levels, N1 (100% RDF) had shown significantly higher total microbial population, dehydrogenase activity and post-harvest soil available NPK of maize. Energy indices viz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energy and energy productivity was found to be the best in N1- 100% RDF. Whereas energy intensiveness was found to be best with N3- 87.5% of RDN, 75% RDP and 75% RDK. However, energy indices like energy use efficiency, energy productivity and energy intensiveness indicated non-significant effect of different nutrient levels. Tillage as well as nutrient levels did not exert any significant effect on moisture content and bulk density at sowing, tasselling & silking and at harvest stages. Similar results were followed with quality parameters. The interaction effect due to tillage and nutrient levels on soil microbial studies, enzymatic activity, weed parameters, quality parameters, soil physico-chemical parameters, and energy indices was found non- significant.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Residue incorporation with microbial consortium (M3) gave significantly higher total microbial population and dehydrogenase activity than other tillage practices.
- Treatment
- residue incorporation (M3)e1
- Outcome
- total microbial population, dehydrogenase activitye1
- Direction
- highere1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“residue incorporation (M3) had recorded significantly higher total microbial population, dehydrogenase activity”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue incorporation (M3) gave significantly higher post-harvest soil available NPK in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“residue incorporation (M3) had recorded significantly higher total microbial population, dehydrogenase activity and post-harvest soil available NPK of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue incorporation (M3) gave the lowest weed density and weed dry matter among tillage practices.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“residue incorporation (M3)”
e2“lowest weed density and weed dry matter”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-tillage (M4) was on par with residue incorporation (M3) for these parameters.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“it was on par with zero-tillage (M4)”
e2“residue incorporation (M3)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All the parameters were significantly lower under conventional tillage (M1).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“all the parameters were significantly lower in conventional tillage (M1)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use efficiency, specific energy and net energy were best under conventional tillage (M1).
- Treatment
- M1 -conventional tillagee1
- Outcome
- energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energye1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Energy indices viz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energy, energy productivity, energy intensiveness was found to be the best in M1 -conventional tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy productivity and energy intensiveness were best under conventional tillage (M1).
- Treatment
- M1 -conventional tillagee1
- Outcome
- energy productivity, energy intensivenesse1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Energy indices viz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energy, energy productivity, energy intensiveness was found to be the best in M1 -conventional tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
N1 (100% RDF) gave significantly higher total microbial population and dehydrogenase activity.
- Treatment
- N1 (100% RDF)e1
- Outcome
- total microbial population, dehydrogenase activitye1
- Direction
- highere1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“N1 (100% RDF) had shown significantly higher total microbial population, dehydrogenase activity”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
N1 (100% RDF) gave significantly higher post-harvest soil available NPK of maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“N1 (100% RDF) had shown significantly higher total microbial population, dehydrogenase activity and post-harvest soil available NPK of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use efficiency, specific energy and net energy were best under N1 (100% RDF).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Energy indices viz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energy and energy productivity was found to be the best in N1- 100% RDF”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy productivity was best under N1 (100% RDF).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Energy indices viz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, net energy and energy productivity was found to be the best in N1- 100% RDF”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy intensiveness was best with N3 (87.5% of RDN, 75% RDP and 75% RDK).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“energy intensiveness was found to be best with N3- 87.5% of RDN, 75% RDP and 75% RDK”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient levels had a non-significant effect on energy use efficiency, energy productivity and energy intensiveness.
- Treatment
- different nutrient levelse1
- Outcome
- energy use efficiency, energy productivity and energy intensivenesse1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“energy indices like energy use efficiency, energy productivity and energy intensiveness indicated non-significant effect of different nutrient levels”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage had no significant effect on moisture content and bulk density at sowing, tasselling and silking, and harvest stages.
- Organ / stage
- sowing, tasselling & silking and at harvest stagese1
- Treatment
- Tillagee1
- Outcome
- moisture content and bulk densitye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Tillage as well as nutrient levels did not exert any significant effect on moisture content and bulk density at sowing, tasselling & silking and at harvest stages”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient levels had no significant effect on moisture content and bulk density at sowing, tasselling and silking, and harvest stages.
- Organ / stage
- sowing, tasselling & silking and at harvest stagese1
- Treatment
- nutrient levelse1
- Outcome
- moisture content and bulk densitye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Tillage as well as nutrient levels did not exert any significant effect on moisture content and bulk density at sowing, tasselling & silking and at harvest stages”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Quality parameters showed similar results, with no significant effect of tillage or nutrient levels.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Similar results were followed with quality parameters”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The tillage by nutrient level interaction was non-significant for soil microbial studies, enzymatic activity and weed parameters.
- Treatment
- tillage and nutrient levelse1
- Outcome
- soil microbial studies, enzymatic activity, weed parameterse1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The interaction effect due to tillage and nutrient levels on soil microbial studies, enzymatic activity, weed parameters, quality parameters, soil physico-chemical parameters, and energy indices was found non- significant”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The tillage by nutrient level interaction was non-significant for quality parameters, soil physico-chemical parameters and energy indices.
- Treatment
- tillage and nutrient levelse1
- Outcome
- quality parameters, soil physico-chemical parameters, and energy indicese1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The interaction effect due to tillage and nutrient levels on soil microbial studies, enzymatic activity, weed parameters, quality parameters, soil physico-chemical parameters, and energy indices was found non- significant”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →tillage · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →organic · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →organic · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
72 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →fertilization · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
72 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 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 →8 of 10 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.