Paper · 2023 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Residual effect of shredded cotton (Gossypium species) stalks and fertility levels on productivity, quality parameters and economics of sweet corn (Zea mays)

K. BHARGAVI REDDY; M. MALLA REDDY; B. PADMAJA; et al.

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was carried out during the winter (rabi) season of 2020–21 on sandy clay loam soil of College of Agriculture, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, to study the effect of incorporation of cotton (Gossypium sp.) stalk on soil-fertility status and yield of succeeding sweet corn (Zea mays L.). The treatments comprised 2 levels of residue management, viz. shredded cotton stalks incorporation and no incorporation, and 5 fertility levels, viz. control, 75% Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF), 100% RDF, 125% RDF and 150% RDF, making 10 treatment combinations. There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal but NPK uptake was enhanced with cotton-stalk incorporation. However, higher net returns and benefit : cost (B : C) ratio were obtained with residue removal plots. An application of 150% RDF (300 : 90 : 75 kg NPK/ha) resulted in the significant increase in yield and was at par with 125% RDF (250 : 75 : 62.5 kg NPK/ha). Quality parameter, viz. crude protein (11.6%), was higher with the application of 150% RDF, being at par with 125% RDF. The higher gross returns, net returns and B : C ratio were obtained with 150% RDF. It would be, therefore, advisable to apply 125% RDF (250 : 75 : 62.5 kg NPK/ha) to sweet corn. The interaction effect between residue management and fertility levels was non-significant for all the parameters of sweet corn.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Residue incorporation had no significant impact on sweet corn yield and quality parameters relative to residue removal.

Taxon
sweet corne1
Treatment
residue incorporatione1
Outcome
yield and quality parameterse1
Direction
no significant impacte1
Comparator
residue removale1

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton-stalk incorporation enhanced NPK uptake in sweet corn.

Taxon
sweet corne1
Treatment
cotton-stalk incorporatione2
Outcome
NPK uptakee2
Direction
enhancede2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e2

“NPK uptake was enhanced with cotton-stalk incorporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Residue removal gave higher net returns and benefit:cost ratio than residue incorporation in sweet corn.

Taxon
sweet corne1
Treatment
residue removale3
Outcome
net returns and benefit : cost (B : C) ratioe3
Direction
highere3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e3

“However, higher net returns and benefit : cost (B : C) ratio were obtained with residue removal plots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–921 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150% RDF (300 : 90 : 75 kg NPK/ha) gave a significant increase in sweet corn yield.

Taxon
sweet corne1
Treatment
150% RDF (300 : 90 : 75 kg NPK/ha)e4
Outcome
yielde4
Direction
increasee4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e4

“An application of 150% RDF (300 : 90 : 75 kg NPK/ha) resulted in the significant increase in yield and was at par with 125% RDF (250 : 75 : 62.5 kg NPK/ha).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 922–1078 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150% RDF gave higher crude protein in sweet corn, at par with 125% RDF.

Taxon
sweet corne1
Treatment
150% RDFe5
Outcome
crude proteine5
Direction
highere5
Value
11.6%e5
Comparator
125% RDFe5

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e5

“Quality parameter, viz. crude protein (11.6%), was higher with the application of 150% RDF, being at par with 125% RDF.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1198 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150% RDF gave higher gross returns, net returns and B:C ratio in sweet corn.

Taxon
sweet corne1
Treatment
150% RDFe6
Outcome
gross returns, net returns and B : C ratioe6
Direction
highere6

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e6

“The higher gross returns, net returns and B : C ratio were obtained with 150% RDF.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1199–1281 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Applying 125% RDF (250 : 75 : 62.5 kg NPK/ha) to sweet corn is advisable.

Taxon
sweet corne7
Outcome
apply 125% RDF (250 : 75 : 62.5 kg NPK/ha)e7

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e7

“It would be, therefore, advisable to apply 125% RDF (250 : 75 : 62.5 kg NPK/ha) to sweet corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1282–1376 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The interaction between residue management and fertility levels was non-significant for all sweet corn parameters.

Taxon
sweet corne0
Treatment
residue managemente0
Outcome
interaction effect between residue management and fertility levelse0
Direction
non-significante0

Verbatim

e1

“There was no significant impact of residue incorporation on yield and quality parameters of sweet corn over the residue removal”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 630–757 · show in text ↑
e0

“The interaction effect between residue management and fertility levels was non-significant for all the parameters of sweet corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1377–1505 · show in text ↑

organic · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

262 papers: 236 positive, 26 negative or no effect

235 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

258 papers more in this group

See all 262 papers →

fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

3,908 papers: 3,485 positive, 423 negative or no effect

3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

3,904 papers more in this group

See all 3,908 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.