Abstract
The study was carried out during two consecutive years (2022–23 and 2023–24) in both rainy (kharif) and winter (rabi) seasons at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi to analyse the financial viability of various nutrient management options i.e. chemical, organic, integrated, and natural farming in maize (Zea mays L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system irrigated at 0.8 and 1.0 crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for surface drip (SDI) and sub-surface drip irrigation (SSDI). The effects were also compared with the farmers’ conventional practice of surface irrigation and soil application of 100% of the recommended nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertiliser doses. The system maize equivalent yield (SMEY) obtained with the integrated nutrient management (50% RDN through FYM + vermicompost and 50% RDN through chemical fertilisers) was found to be the higher and at par with that of the chemical nutrient management (10.6 Mg/ha) and conventional system (10.3 Mg/ha) but 14% and 24% higher compared to organic and natural farming nutrient management options, respectively. SMEY productivity was found equal in SDI and SSDI but improved significantly at irrigation schedule of 1.0 ETc compared to 0.8 ETc. At the system level, integrated nutrient management under drip irrigation used substantially less water (2270–2973 m³/ha) than surface irrigation (100% RDF) (4650 m³/ha), while simultaneously achieving higher system water use efficiency (3.61–4.78 kg/m3) compared with surface irrigation (2.23 kg/m3). The soil properties (available K, microbial carbon and dehydrogenase activity) were found significant in organic and chemical methods. Due to less input cost, the cost of cultivation in natural farming was 12, 20 and 17% lower than that in chemical, organic and integrated nutrient management options, respectively. Pooled analysis showed that integrated nutrient management recorded the highest gross returns, net income, and benefit-cost ratio in the maize–wheat system, with SSDI at 1.0 ETc plus integrated nutrients producing 17% higher net income than conventional surface irrigation with soil-applied NPK.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated nutrient management gave higher maize equivalent yield, at par with chemical management and conventional systems.
- Treatment
- integrated nutrient managemente0
- Outcome
- system maize equivalent yield (SMEY)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- conventional system (10.3 Mg/ha)e0
- Comparator
- chemical nutrient managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The system maize equivalent yield (SMEY) obtained with the integrated nutrient management (50% RDN through FYM + vermicompost and 50% RDN through chemical fertilisers) was found to be the higher and at par with that of the chemical nutrient management (10.6 Mg/ha) and conventional system (10.3 Mg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated management produced 14% higher maize equivalent yield than organic management.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“14% and 24% higher compared to organic and natural farming nutrient management options, respectively”
e1“system maize equivalent yield (SMEY)”
e2“the integrated nutrient management (50% RDN through FYM + vermicompost and 50% RDN through chemical fertilisers)”
e3“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated management produced 24% higher maize equivalent yield than natural farming.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“14% and 24% higher compared to organic and natural farming nutrient management options, respectively”
e1“system maize equivalent yield (SMEY)”
e2“the integrated nutrient management (50% RDN through FYM + vermicompost and 50% RDN through chemical fertilisers)”
e3“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize equivalent yield productivity was equal under surface and subsurface drip irrigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SMEY productivity was found equal in SDI and SSDI”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at 1.0 ETc significantly improved maize equivalent yield productivity over 0.8 ETc.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SMEY productivity was found equal in SDI and SSDI but improved significantly at irrigation schedule of 1.0 ETc compared to 0.8 ETc”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated nutrient management with drip irrigation used 2270–2973 m³/ha, less water than conventional surface irrigation at 4650 m³/ha.
- Taxon
- maize–wheat
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayse0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“integrated nutrient management under drip irrigation used substantially less water (2270–2973 m³/ha) than surface irrigation (100% RDF) (4650 m³/ha)”
e1“maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated nutrient management with drip irrigation achieved water use efficiency of 3.61–4.78 kg/m3 versus 2.23 kg/m3 for surface irrigation.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“achieving higher system water use efficiency (3.61–4.78 kg/m3) compared with surface irrigation (2.23 kg/m3)”
e1“integrated nutrient management under drip irrigation”
e2“maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Available K, microbial carbon, and dehydrogenase activity differed significantly under organic and chemical methods.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The soil properties (available K, microbial carbon and dehydrogenase activity) were found significant in organic and chemical methods”
e1“maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Natural farming cultivation cost was 12% lower than chemical management.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cost of cultivation in natural farming was 12, 20 and 17% lower than that in chemical, organic and integrated nutrient management options, respectively”
e1“maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Natural farming cultivation cost was 20% lower than organic management.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cost of cultivation in natural farming was 12, 20 and 17% lower than that in chemical, organic and integrated nutrient management options, respectively”
e1“maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Natural farming cultivation cost was 17% lower than integrated management.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cost of cultivation in natural farming was 12, 20 and 17% lower than that in chemical, organic and integrated nutrient management options, respectively”
e1“maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated nutrient management recorded the highest gross returns, net income, and benefit-cost ratio.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- integrated nutrient managemente0
- Outcome
- gross returns, net income, and benefit-cost ratioe0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“integrated nutrient management recorded the highest gross returns, net income, and benefit-cost ratio in the maize–wheat system”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip at 1.0 ETc with integrated nutrients yielded 17% higher net income than conventional surface irrigation with soil-applied NPK.
- Taxon
- maize–wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SSDI at 1.0 ETc plus integrated nutrients producing 17% higher net income than conventional surface irrigation with soil-applied NPK”
e1“maize–wheat system”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
98 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
299 papers more in this group
See all 303 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 · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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
- negative
- no effect
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.