Paper · 2025 · Asian Journal of Research in Biochemistry

Comparative Assessment of Farming Practices on Wheat Yield, Quality Parameters and Nutrient Uptake

Rutuja Chaukhe; Deepak Sawale; S.U. Deshmukh; et al.

11
claims
26
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune during kharif, 2024 to study residual effect of farming practices on yield, quality and nutrient uptake under wheat cultivation. The experiment was initiated in 2022- 23 as a soybean-wheat sequence cropping system. A randomized block design (RBD) four replications and five treatments was adopted, comprising coventional practices (T1), General recommended dose of fertilizers (T2), organic farming (T3), zero budget natural farming (T4) and climate resilient farming (T5). The results revealed that, climate resilient farming (T5) recorded significantly higher grain yield (43.28 q ha-1) and straw yield (59.72 q ha-1). Quality parameters such as protein content (12.60 %) and hectolitre weight (81.91 kg hl-1) were also significantly superior under climate resilient farming. Nutrient uptake was enhanced under T5, with significantly higher total N (128.79 kg ha-1), P (56.42 kg ha-1), and K (115.46 kg ha-1) uptake compared to other treatments. Morever, uptake of micronutrients by wheat was also highest under T5, with Fe (1161.47 g ha-1), Mn (431.5 g ha-1), Zn (282.33 g ha-1) and Cu (60.36 g ha-1) r closely followed by General recommended dose of fertilizer.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly increased wheat grain yield to 43.28 q ha-1.

Treatment
climate resilient farminge1
Outcome
grain yielde1
Direction
highere1
Value
43.28 q ha-1e1
Setting
Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Punee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e0

“A field experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune during kharif, 2024”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–103 · show in text ↑
e1

“climate resilient farming (T5) recorded significantly higher grain yield (43.28 q ha-1) and straw yield (59.72 q ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 585–703 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly increased wheat straw yield to 59.72 q ha-1.

Treatment
climate resilient farminge1
Outcome
straw yielde1
Direction
highere1
Value
59.72 q ha-1e1
Setting
Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Punee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e0

“A field experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune during kharif, 2024”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–103 · show in text ↑
e1

“climate resilient farming (T5) recorded significantly higher grain yield (43.28 q ha-1) and straw yield (59.72 q ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 585–703 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly improved wheat protein content to 12.60 %.

Treatment
climate resilient farminge2
Outcome
protein contente2
Direction
superiore2
Value
12.60 %e2
Setting
Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Punee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e0

“A field experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune during kharif, 2024”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–103 · show in text ↑
e2

“Quality parameters such as protein content (12.60 %) and hectolitre weight (81.91 kg hl-1) were also significantly superior under climate resilient farming”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 705–860 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly improved wheat hectolitre weight to 81.91 kg hl-1.

Treatment
climate resilient farminge2
Outcome
hectolitre weighte2
Direction
superiore2
Value
81.91 kg hl-1e2
Setting
Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Punee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e0

“A field experiment was conducted at the Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune during kharif, 2024”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–103 · show in text ↑
e2

“Quality parameters such as protein content (12.60 %) and hectolitre weight (81.91 kg hl-1) were also significantly superior under climate resilient farming”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 705–860 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly increased total N uptake to 128.79 kg ha-1 compared with other treatments.

Treatment
T5e3
Outcome
total Ne3
Direction
highere3
Value
128.79 kg ha-1e3
Comparator
other treatmentse3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e3

“Nutrient uptake was enhanced under T5, with significantly higher total N (128.79 kg ha-1), P (56.42 kg ha-1), and K (115.46 kg ha-1) uptake compared to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–1030 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly increased P uptake to 56.42 kg ha-1 compared with other treatments.

Treatment
T5e3
Outcome
Pe3
Direction
highere3
Value
56.42 kg ha-1e3
Comparator
other treatmentse3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e3

“Nutrient uptake was enhanced under T5, with significantly higher total N (128.79 kg ha-1), P (56.42 kg ha-1), and K (115.46 kg ha-1) uptake compared to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–1030 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Climate resilient farming significantly increased K uptake to 115.46 kg ha-1 compared with other treatments.

Treatment
T5e3
Outcome
Ke3
Direction
highere3
Value
115.46 kg ha-1e3
Comparator
other treatmentse3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e3

“Nutrient uptake was enhanced under T5, with significantly higher total N (128.79 kg ha-1), P (56.42 kg ha-1), and K (115.46 kg ha-1) uptake compared to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–1030 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under T5, wheat Fe uptake was highest at 1161.47 g ha-1.

Treatment
T5e4
Outcome
Fee4
Direction
higheste4
Value
1161.47 g ha-1e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e4

“uptake of micronutrients by wheat was also highest under T5, with Fe (1161.47 g ha-1), Mn (431.5 g ha-1), Zn (282.33 g ha-1) and Cu (60.36 g ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1187 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under T5, wheat Mn uptake was highest at 431.5 g ha-1.

Treatment
T5e4
Outcome
Mne4
Direction
higheste4
Value
431.5 g ha-1e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e4

“uptake of micronutrients by wheat was also highest under T5, with Fe (1161.47 g ha-1), Mn (431.5 g ha-1), Zn (282.33 g ha-1) and Cu (60.36 g ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1187 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under T5, wheat Zn uptake was highest at 282.33 g ha-1.

Treatment
T5e4
Outcome
Zne4
Direction
higheste4
Value
282.33 g ha-1e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e4

“uptake of micronutrients by wheat was also highest under T5, with Fe (1161.47 g ha-1), Mn (431.5 g ha-1), Zn (282.33 g ha-1) and Cu (60.36 g ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1187 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under T5, wheat Cu uptake was highest at 60.36 g ha-1.

Treatment
T5e4
Outcome
Cue4
Direction
higheste4
Value
60.36 g ha-1e4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–52 · show in text ↑
e4

“uptake of micronutrients by wheat was also highest under T5, with Fe (1161.47 g ha-1), Mn (431.5 g ha-1), Zn (282.33 g ha-1) and Cu (60.36 g ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1187 · show in text ↑

climate site · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

154 papers: 72 positive, 82 negative or no effect

71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

150 papers more in this group

See all 154 papers →

climate site · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.