Abstract
The conservation agriculture (CA)-based approaches, including zero tillage (ZT)/reduced tillage (RT) with pulse-based cropping systems, support climate resilience in the long-run. However, the support services of CA are increasingly evident under irrigated agro-ecologies with normal/flood irrigation. Necessarily, the benefits of CA and pulse-based cropping intensification must be explored in under sprinkler irrigation system because of anticipated water scarcity across the globe. We aimed to compare the conservation tillage x sprinkler irrigation scheduling with conventional tillage (CT) and flood irrigation in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system for two years. The study was undertaken in split-plot design with three tillage systems in main plots: ZT, reduced tillage (RT), and CT in both crops and six irrigation management subplots such as sprinkler irrigation and normal/flood irrigation scheduling at branching, pod formation, and branching + pod formation stages of field pea. Tillage practices followed an order of ZT > RT > CT (p < 0.05) for productivity of both crops. The ZT with sprinkler irrigation at branching + pod formation stages significantly increased field pea yield by 70% (CI 95%) and maize yield by 33.1% (CI 95%) compared with CT and flood irrigation (conventional practice). Consequently, ZT with sprinkler irrigation resulted in 18.8% and 6.7% (CI 95%) higher system productivity compared with CT and flood irrigation (p < 0.05). The ZT resulted in an additional net benefit of INR 45,912 compared with CT. Besides, sprinkler-irrigation provided an additional benefit of INR 13,903 compared with flood irrigation. The reduction in tillage intensity (ZT and RT) significantly increased water-use-efficiency (WUE) and water productivity (WP) compared to CT. Notably, ZT with sprinkler irrigation reduced the consumptive use of water compared to conventional practice. In a system perspective, ZT with sprinkler irrigation (at branch and pod formation) increased 59.2% WUE and 75.6% WP than conventional practice. Thus, in arid and semi-arid regions, where water resources are scarce, conservation tillage with micro-irrigation can be adopted in pulse-based cropping system.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation at branching and pod formation increased field pea yield by 70% compared with conventional tillage and flood irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e1“The ZT with sprinkler irrigation at branching + pod formation stages significantly increased field pea yield by 70% (CI 95%) and maize yield by 33.1% (CI 95%) compared with CT and flood irrigation (conventional practice)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation at branching and pod formation increased maize yield by 33.1% compared with conventional tillage and flood irrigation.
- Treatment
- ZT with sprinkler irrigation at branching + pod formation stagese1
- Outcome
- maize yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 33.1% (CI 95%)e1
- Comparator
- CT and flood irrigatione1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e1“The ZT with sprinkler irrigation at branching + pod formation stages significantly increased field pea yield by 70% (CI 95%) and maize yield by 33.1% (CI 95%) compared with CT and flood irrigation (conventional practice)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation gave 18.8% higher system productivity than conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e2“Consequently, ZT with sprinkler irrigation resulted in 18.8% and 6.7% (CI 95%) higher system productivity compared with CT and flood irrigation (p < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation gave 6.7% higher system productivity than flood irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e2“Consequently, ZT with sprinkler irrigation resulted in 18.8% and 6.7% (CI 95%) higher system productivity compared with CT and flood irrigation (p < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage gave an additional net benefit of INR 45,912 compared with conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e3“The ZT resulted in an additional net benefit of INR 45,912 compared with CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprinkler irrigation gave an additional benefit of INR 13,903 compared with flood irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e4“Besides, sprinkler-irrigation provided an additional benefit of INR 13,903 compared with flood irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage intensity significantly increased water-use efficiency and water productivity compared with conventional tillage.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e5“The reduction in tillage intensity (ZT and RT) significantly increased water-use-efficiency (WUE) and water productivity (WP) compared to CT”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation reduced consumptive water use compared with conventional practice.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e6“Notably, ZT with sprinkler irrigation reduced the consumptive use of water compared to conventional practice”
Claim · model-written summary
At system level, zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation increased WUE by 59.2% over conventional practice.
- Treatment
- ZT with sprinkler irrigation (at branch and pod formation)e7
- Outcome
- WUEe7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Value
- 59.2%e7
- Comparator
- conventional practicee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e7“In a system perspective, ZT with sprinkler irrigation (at branch and pod formation) increased 59.2% WUE and 75.6% WP than conventional practice”
Claim · model-written summary
At system level, zero tillage with sprinkler irrigation increased WP by 75.6% over conventional practice.
- Treatment
- ZT with sprinkler irrigation (at branch and pod formation)e7
- Outcome
- WPe7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Value
- 75.6%e7
- Comparator
- conventional practicee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e7“In a system perspective, ZT with sprinkler irrigation (at branch and pod formation) increased 59.2% WUE and 75.6% WP than conventional practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation tillage with micro-irrigation can be adopted in pulse-based cropping systems in arid and semi-arid regions.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e1“Thus, in arid and semi-arid regions, where water resources are scarce, conservation tillage with micro-irrigation can be adopted in pulse-based cropping system”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage practices ranked ZT > RT > CT for productivity of both crops.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system”
e1“Tillage practices followed an order of ZT > RT > CT (p < 0.05) for productivity of both crops”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tillage · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
283 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
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
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.