Abstract
The present investigation was conducted for two consecutive kharif seasons (2021 and 2022) at the Agricultural Research Station, Kampasagar, Nalgonda district, on sandy clay loam soils using a split-plot design with three main plots and three sub- plots, replicated thrice. Root parameters such as root volume and root-to-shoot ratio showed significant variation among establishment methods, with dry direct seeded rice (M 1 ) recording numerically higher values. However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding. Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on root traits and yield parameters, although alternate wetting and drying (AWDI) and continuous submergence performed better than saturation irrigation. A key challenge in the study was managing uniform field conditions across varying methods and seasons. Despite this, the study contributed valuable insights into the suitability of different crop establishment methods and irrigation strategies under semi-arid conditions, highlighting the potential of wet direct seeding and AWDI to improve rice productivity while optimizing water use.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Dry direct seeded rice had numerically higher root volume among establishment methods.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- dry direct seeded rice (M 1 )e0
- Outcome
- root volumee0
- Direction
- highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root parameters such as root volume and root-to-shoot ratio showed significant variation among establishment methods, with dry direct seeded rice (M 1 ) recording numerically higher values.”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry direct seeded rice had numerically higher root-to-shoot ratio among establishment methods.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- dry direct seeded rice (M 1 )e0
- Outcome
- root-to-shoot ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root parameters such as root volume and root-to-shoot ratio showed significant variation among establishment methods, with dry direct seeded rice (M 1 ) recording numerically higher values.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet direct seeded rice performed better for number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), on par with transplanting and above dry seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- wet direct seeded rice (M 2 )e0
- Outcome
- number of panicles m⁻²e0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 285.5e0
- Qualifier
- on par with manual transplanting (M 3 )e0
- Comparator
- dry seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet direct seeded rice performed better for panicle length (27.3 cm), on par with transplanting and above dry seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- wet direct seeded rice (M 2 )e0
- Outcome
- panicle lengthe0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 27.3 cme0
- Qualifier
- on par with manual transplanting (M 3 )e0
- Comparator
- dry seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet direct seeded rice performed better for panicle weight (4.69 g), on par with transplanting and above dry seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- wet direct seeded rice (M 2 )e0
- Outcome
- panicle weighte0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 4.69 ge0
- Qualifier
- on par with manual transplanting (M 3 )e0
- Comparator
- dry seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet direct seeded rice performed better for number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), on par with transplanting and above dry seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- wet direct seeded rice (M 2 )e0
- Outcome
- number of spikelets panicle⁻¹e0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 196.7e0
- Qualifier
- on par with manual transplanting (M 3 )e0
- Comparator
- dry seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet direct seeded rice performed better for filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8), on par with transplanting and above dry seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- wet direct seeded rice (M 2 )e0
- Outcome
- filled grains panicle⁻¹e0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 189.8e0
- Qualifier
- on par with manual transplanting (M 3 )e0
- Comparator
- dry seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet direct seeded rice performed better for test weight (26.6 g), on par with transplanting and above dry seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- wet direct seeded rice (M 2 )e0
- Outcome
- test weighte0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 26.6 ge0
- Qualifier
- on par with manual transplanting (M 3 )e0
- Comparator
- dry seedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, yield-attributing traits like number of panicles m⁻² (285.5), panicle length (27.3 cm), panicle weight (4.69 g), number of spikelets panicle⁻¹ (196.7), filled grains panicle⁻¹ (189.8) and test weight (26.6 g) were significantly influenced by establishment methods, with wet direct seeded rice (M 2 ) performing better, on par with manual transplanting (M 3 ) and superior to dry seeding.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on root traits.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Irrigation treatments and interactionse0
- Outcome
- root traitse0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on root traits and yield parameters, although alternate wetting and drying (AWDI) and continuous submergence performed better than saturation irrigation.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on yield parameters.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Irrigation treatments and interactionse0
- Outcome
- yield parameterse0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on root traits and yield parameters, although alternate wetting and drying (AWDI) and continuous submergence performed better than saturation irrigation.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
alternate wetting and drying (AWDI) performed better than saturation irrigation.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- alternate wetting and drying (AWDI)e0
- Outcome
- performed bettere0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- saturation irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on root traits and yield parameters, although alternate wetting and drying (AWDI) and continuous submergence performed better than saturation irrigation.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
continuous submergence performed better than saturation irrigation.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- continuous submergencee0
- Outcome
- performed bettere0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- saturation irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation treatments and interactions had no significant effect on root traits and yield parameters, although alternate wetting and drying (AWDI) and continuous submergence performed better than saturation irrigation.”
t0“rice”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · quality: grain · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →irrigation · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
68 papers in the same direction as this paper · 222 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
287 papers more in this group
See all 291 papers →transplanting · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
921 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
1,074 papers more in this group
See all 1,078 papers →irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
264 papers in the same direction as this paper · 906 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,167 papers more in this group
See all 1,171 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.