Abstract
This experiment was conducted to study the effect of different tillage practices, irrigation schedules and nitrogen levels on the grain yield, stalk yield, harvest index and economics of rabi maize in rice fallows. The design selected for this study was Split- split plot design. This experiment was conducted at Regional Agricultural Research Station farm, Polasa, Jagtial during rabi 2022 and 2023. The experiment was laid out in split- split plot design with twelve treatment combinations which are replicated thrice. The treatments are two main plots: T1- Zero tillage, T2- Conventional tillage (cultivator twice fb rotovator twice); three sub plots: I1- 60% ASM, I2- 40% ASM and I3- Irrigation at six critical stages; and two sub-sub plot treatments: N1- 100% RDN and N2- 120% RDN. Results indicated that higher grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio were higher in conventional tillage among the two tillage practices, in I3 treatment among the three irrigation schedules and in N2 (120% RDN) among the two nitrogen levels. The lowest values were recorded with zero tillage, I2 treatment and N1 (100% RDN). Harvest index was significantly effected by tillage practices but it is non-significant with irrigation schedules and nitrogen levels.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage gave higher grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio than zero tillage.
- Treatment
- Conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Zero tillagee1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio were higher in conventional tillage among the two tillage practices”
e1“T1- Zero tillage, T2- Conventional tillage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
I3 irrigation gave higher grain yield, stalk yield and economic returns than the other irrigation schedules.
- Treatment
- I3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- three irrigation schedulese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio were higher in conventional tillage among the two tillage practices, in I3 treatment among the three irrigation schedules”
e1“I3- Irrigation at six critical stages”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
N2 nitrogen gave higher grain yield, stalk yield and economic returns than N1.
- Treatment
- N2 (120% RDN)e0
- Outcome
- grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- N1- 100% RDNe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio were higher in conventional tillage among the two tillage practices, in I3 treatment among the three irrigation schedules and in N2 (120% RDN) among the two nitrogen levels”
e1“N1- 100% RDN and N2- 120% RDN”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage, I2 irrigation and N1 nitrogen gave the lowest values for the reported production and economic outcomes.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest values were recorded with zero tillage, I2 treatment and N1 (100% RDN).”
e1“grain yield, stalk yield, gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest index differed significantly by tillage practice.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Harvest index was significantly effected by tillage practices”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation schedules did not significantly affect harvest index.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Harvest index was significantly effected by tillage practices but it is non-significant with irrigation schedules and nitrogen levels.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen levels did not significantly affect harvest index.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Harvest index was significantly effected by tillage practices but it is non-significant with irrigation schedules and nitrogen levels.”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
278 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,906 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.