Abstract
AbstractThe experiment was conducted during kharif 2019 in the long-term field experiment plots maintained since 1978 at the All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture (AICRPDA), UAS, Bangalore to study the impact of long-term fertilizer application on soil fertility and productivity of finger millet under finger millet monocropping and finger millet-groundnut rotation in Alfisols. The experiment was laid out in a RCBD with three factors combination consisting of two sources of organic manure (S1: FYM @ 10 t/ha, S2: maize residue @ 5/ha), two cropping system (R1: finger millet - groundnut rotation, R2: finger millet monocropping) and five nutrient management (T1: absolute control, T2: Organic manure, T3: Organic manure + 50% RDF, T4: Organic manure + 100% RDF, T5: RDF). Among the source of organic manures, application of farmyard manure FYM @ 10 t/ ha recorded significantly higher grain (3312 kg/ha) and straw yield (3991 kg/ha) and improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha), (130.4 kg/ha), K2O (137.6 kg/ha), Ca (2.06 c mol/kg), Mg (0.95 c mol/kg), S (11.03 mg/kg), Fe (17.31 mg/kg), Mn (17.31 mg/ P2O5 kg), Cu (0.95 mg/kg) and Zn (1.35 mg/kg). The physical properties viz., bulk density values were reduced to (1.34 Mg/m3), whereas MWHC (43.6%), FC (10.0%) and PWP (5.1%) showed higher values with application of FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication. Finger millet - groundnut rotation recorded significantly higher finger millet yield and soil fertility status than monocropping. Among, nutrient management techniques, application of organic manure + 100% RDF recorded significantly higher finger millet grain (4329 kg/ha) and straw yield (5335 kg/ha). Overall, integration of FYM 10 t/ha with 100% RDF was found superior for finger millet productivity, sustainable soil health and among cropping system, finger millet-groundnut rotation was superior compared to finger millet monocropping. The sustainable yield index (0.73) was superior with application of FYM 10 t/ha +100% RDF under rotation cropping system.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha gave significantly higher finger millet grain yield (3312 kg/ha) than maize residue at 5 t/ha.
- Taxon
- finger millet
Eleusine coracanae0 - Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- graine2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 3312 kg/hae2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“farmyard manure FYM @ 10 t/ ha recorded significantly higher grain (3312 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha gave significantly higher finger millet straw yield (3991 kg/ha) than maize residue at 5 t/ha.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- straw yielde2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 3991 kg/hae2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“farmyard manure FYM @ 10 t/ ha recorded significantly higher grain (3312 kg/ha) and straw yield (3991 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha improved soil available N (155.5 kg/ha) compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- soil available Ne2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 155.5 (kg/ha)e2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha improved soil K2O (137.6 kg/ha) compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- K2Oe2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 137.6 kg/hae2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha), (130.4 kg/ha), K2O (137.6 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha improved soil Ca (2.06 c mol/kg) compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- Cae2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 2.06 c mol/kge2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha), (130.4 kg/ha), K2O (137.6 kg/ha), Ca (2.06 c mol/kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha improved soil Mg (0.95 c mol/kg) compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- Mge2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 0.95 c mol/kge2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha), (130.4 kg/ha), K2O (137.6 kg/ha), Ca (2.06 c mol/kg), Mg (0.95 c mol/kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha improved soil S (11.03 mg/kg) compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- Se2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 11.03 mg/kge2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha), (130.4 kg/ha), K2O (137.6 kg/ha), Ca (2.06 c mol/kg), Mg (0.95 c mol/kg), S (11.03 mg/kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha improved soil Fe (17.31 mg/kg), Mn, Cu and Zn compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- Fee2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 17.31 mg/kge2
- Qualifier
- Mn (17.31 mg/ P2O5 kg), Cu (0.95 mg/kg) and Zn (1.35 mg/kg)e2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“improved the soil available N 155.5 (kg/ha), (130.4 kg/ha), K2O (137.6 kg/ha), Ca (2.06 c mol/kg), Mg (0.95 c mol/kg), S (11.03 mg/kg), Fe (17.31 mg/kg), Mn (17.31 mg/ P2O5 kg), Cu (0.95 mg/kg) and Zn (1.35 mg/kg)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha reduced soil bulk density to 1.34 Mg/m3 compared with maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- bulk densitye2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 1.34 Mg/m3e2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“bulk density values were reduced to (1.34 Mg/m3)”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha gave higher soil MWHC (43.6%) than maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- MWHCe2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 43.6%e2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“MWHC (43.6%), FC (10.0%) and PWP (5.1%) showed higher values”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha gave higher soil FC (10.0%) than maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- FCe2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 10.0%e2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“MWHC (43.6%), FC (10.0%) and PWP (5.1%) showed higher values”
Claim · model-written summary
FYM at 10 t/ha gave higher soil PWP (5.1%) than maize residue.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM @ 10 t/hae1
- Outcome
- PWPe2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 5.1%e2
- Comparator
- maize residue @ 5 t/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to maize residue @ 5 t/haapplication”
e2“MWHC (43.6%), FC (10.0%) and PWP (5.1%) showed higher values”
Claim · model-written summary
Finger millet-groundnut rotation gave significantly higher finger millet yield and soil fertility status than monocropping.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- Finger millet - groundnut rotatione0
- Outcome
- finger millet yield and soil fertility statuse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- monocroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Finger millet - groundnut rotation recorded significantly higher finger millet yield and soil fertility status than monocropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic manure + 100% RDF gave significantly higher finger millet grain yield (4329 kg/ha) among nutrient management treatments.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- organic manure + 100% RDFe0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4329 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic manure + 100% RDF recorded significantly higher finger millet grain (4329 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic manure + 100% RDF gave significantly higher finger millet straw yield (5335 kg/ha) among nutrient management treatments.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- organic manure + 100% RDFe0
- Outcome
- straw yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5335 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic manure + 100% RDF recorded significantly higher finger millet grain (4329 kg/ha) and straw yield (5335 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
The sustainable yield index (0.73) was superior with FYM 10 t/ha + 100% RDF under rotation cropping.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- FYM 10 t/ha +100% RDFe1
- Outcome
- sustainable yield indexe1
- Direction
- superiore1
- Value
- 0.73e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“productivity of finger millet under finger millet”
e1“The sustainable yield index (0.73) was superior with application of FYM 10 t/ha +100% RDF under rotation cropping system”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude integrating FYM 10 t/ha with 100% RDF was superior for finger millet productivity.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Outcome
- superior for finger millet productivitye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“integration of FYM 10 t/ha with 100% RDF was found superior for finger millet productivity”
The same questions in other papers
Arachis hypogaea · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →fertilization · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
170 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 papers →fertilization · soil: physics · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
rotation · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
fertilization · soil: chemistry · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
18 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 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.