Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during rainy (kharif) seasons of 2020–21 and 2021–22 at the research farm of ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi to assess the effects of nitrogen and residual sulphur (S) on maize crop in the 11th year of a long-term conservation agriculture (CA)-based maize (Zea mays L.)-Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] cropping system. The CA-based practice CA3 [ZT maize (ZTMz) + mustard residue (MsR) + brown manuring (BM) – ZT mustard (ZTMs) + maize residue (MzR)] resulted in greater maize plant height and dry weight than other CA and CT systems except CA4 [ZTMz + mungbean residue (MbR) – ZTMs + MzR – ZTMb + MsR], which had comparable plant height and dry weight. The CA3 increased maize dry weight by 9% and 11.7% over CT in 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively. On the contrary, CA4 exhibited highest root length, root mass, and root volume densities in both years, and CA3 was comparable. It gave significantly higher grain yield than other treatments except CA3 and CA2 (ZTMz + MsR- ZTMs + MzR), which were comparable. The 100% and 75% recommended dose of N gave comparable grain yield under all CA-based treatments, indicating a saving of 25% N (~37.5 kg N/ha), mainly under CA practices. This highlights N economization over times in CA system. The 100% and 50% S applied to mustard could not show any significant residual effect on maize grain, stover and biological yields. Interactions between CA practices and N treatments for grain yield was significant but between CA and residual S, treatments were statistically similar. Thus, this study underscores the importance of CA framework for enhancing yield and income through better N and S management/savings in maize-mustard system.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
CA3 gave greater maize plant height and dry weight than other CA and CT systems.
- Treatment
- CA3e0
- Outcome
- plant height and dry weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- other CA and CT systemse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e0“CA3 [ZT maize (ZTMz) + mustard residue (MsR) + brown manuring (BM) – ZT mustard (ZTMs) + maize residue (MzR)] resulted in greater maize plant height and dry weight than other CA and CT systems”
Claim · model-written summary
CA3 increased maize dry weight by 9% over CT in 2020–21.
- Treatment
- CA3e1
- Outcome
- maize dry weighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 9%e1
- Qualifier
- 2020–21e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e1“The CA3 increased maize dry weight by 9% and 11.7% over CT in 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CA3 increased maize dry weight by 11.7% over CT in 2021–22.
- Treatment
- CA3e1
- Outcome
- maize dry weighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 11.7%e1
- Qualifier
- 2021–22e1
- Comparator
- CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e1“The CA3 increased maize dry weight by 9% and 11.7% over CT in 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CA4 had the highest root length, root mass and root volume densities in both years.
- Treatment
- CA4e2
- Outcome
- root length, root mass, and root volume densitiese2
- Direction
- higheste2
- Qualifier
- in both yearse2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e2“CA4 exhibited highest root length, root mass, and root volume densities in both years, and CA3 was comparable”
Claim · model-written summary
CA4 gave significantly higher grain yield than other treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e2“CA4 exhibited highest root length, root mass, and root volume densities in both years, and CA3 was comparable”
e3“It gave significantly higher grain yield than other treatments except CA3 and CA2 (ZTMz + MsR- ZTMs + MzR), which were comparable”
Claim · model-written summary
CA3 and CA2 gave grain yield comparable to CA4.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e2“CA4 exhibited highest root length, root mass, and root volume densities in both years, and CA3 was comparable”
e3“It gave significantly higher grain yield than other treatments except CA3 and CA2 (ZTMz + MsR- ZTMs + MzR), which were comparable”
Claim · model-written summary
The 75% recommended dose of N gave grain yield comparable to the 100% dose under all CA-based treatments.
- Treatment
- 75% recommended dose of Ne4
- Outcome
- grain yielde4
- Direction
- comparablee4
- Qualifier
- under all CA-based treatmentse4
- Comparator
- 100%e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e4“The 100% and 75% recommended dose of N gave comparable grain yield under all CA-based treatments, indicating a saving of 25% N (~37.5 kg N/ha), mainly under CA practices”
Claim · model-written summary
A 25% saving of N (about 37.5 kg N/ha) is indicated under CA practices.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e4“The 100% and 75% recommended dose of N gave comparable grain yield under all CA-based treatments, indicating a saving of 25% N (~37.5 kg N/ha), mainly under CA practices”
Claim · model-written summary
The 100% and 50% S applied to mustard had no significant residual effect on maize grain, stover and biological yields.
- Treatment
- 100% and 50% S applied to mustarde5
- Outcome
- grain, stover and biological yieldse5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e5“The 100% and 50% S applied to mustard could not show any significant residual effect on maize grain, stover and biological yields”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between CA practices and N treatments for grain yield was significant.
- Outcome
- Interactions between CA practices and N treatments for grain yielde6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e6“Interactions between CA practices and N treatments for grain yield was significant but between CA and residual S, treatments were statistically similar”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between CA and residual S treatments was statistically similar (not significant).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e6“Interactions between CA practices and N treatments for grain yield was significant but between CA and residual S, treatments were statistically similar”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend the CA framework for enhancing yield and income through better N and S management.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“effects on maize (Zea mays) growth and yield”
e7“Thus, this study underscores the importance of CA framework for enhancing yield and income through better N and S management/savings in maize-mustard system”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 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.