Abstract
The experiment was laid out in a strip-split plot design consisting of 16 treatments with three replications, at NMRP, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, during the winter season (October, 2015 to March, 2016). Four different levels of planting geometry (60 cm×30 cm, 60 cm×24 cm, 60 cm×19.5 cm, and 60 cm×16.5 cm, representing 55,555, 69,444, 85,470 and 1,01,010 plants ha-1, respectively), two hybrid varieties of maize (Rampur hybrid 4 and Rampur hybrid 6), and two tillage methods (conventional and zero tillage), were used for the treatments. Economic analysis revealed that significantly higher net benefit (NRs. 1,06,692 ha-1) was obtained with 85 rather than 55 thousand plants ha-1 (NRs. 79,249 ha-1), but remained at par with 69 (NRs. 92,656 ha-1) and 101 (NRs. 96,198 ha-1) thousand plants ha-1. Moreover, the B:C ratio was higher in 85 (2.57) than 55 (2.28), 69 (2.43), and 101 (2.35) thousand plants ha-1. The net returns and B:C ratio (NRs. 97,372 and 2.46) obtained from Rampur hybrid 6 were also higher, but statistically at par with Rampur hybrid 4 (NRs. 90,024 and 2.35), respectively. In addition, net returns and B:C ratio obtained from zero tillage (NRs. 1,03,473 and 2.6) were better than conventional tillage (NRs. 83,924 and 2.22). Thus, both hybrid maize varieties (Rampur hybrid 4 and Rampur hybrid 6) can be successfully grown under a zero tillage system with an optimum plant population of 85 thousand plants ha-1 to achieve a higher grain yield and better winter season net returns in western Chitwan, Rampur, Nepal.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
At 85 thousand plants per hectare, net benefit exceeded that at 55 thousand plants per hectare.
- Treatment
- 85e0
- Outcome
- net benefite0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- NRs. 1,06,692 ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- NRs. 79,249 ha-1e0
- Comparator
- 55 thousand plants ha-1e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly higher net benefit (NRs. 1,06,692 ha-1) was obtained with 85 rather than 55 thousand plants ha-1 (NRs. 79,249 ha-1)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Net benefit at 85 thousand plants per hectare was statistically at par with 69 and 101 thousand.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly higher net benefit (NRs. 1,06,692 ha-1) was obtained with 85 rather than 55 thousand plants ha-1 (NRs. 79,249 ha-1), but remained at par with 69 (NRs. 92,656 ha-1) and 101 (NRs. 96,198 ha-1) thousand plants ha-1”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Benefit to cost ratio was highest at 85 thousand plants per hectare.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the B:C ratio was higher in 85 (2.57) than 55 (2.28), 69 (2.43), and 101 (2.35) thousand plants ha-1”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rampur hybrid 6 net returns exceeded Rampur hybrid 4 but were statistically at par.
- Material
- Rampur hybrid 6e0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- NRs. 97,372e0
- Comparator
- Rampur hybrid 4e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The net returns and B:C ratio (NRs. 97,372 and 2.46) obtained from Rampur hybrid 6 were also higher, but statistically at par with Rampur hybrid 4 (NRs. 90,024 and 2.35)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Rampur hybrid 6 benefit to cost ratio exceeded Rampur hybrid 4 but was statistically at par.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The net returns and B:C ratio (NRs. 97,372 and 2.46) obtained from Rampur hybrid 6 were also higher, but statistically at par with Rampur hybrid 4 (NRs. 90,024 and 2.35)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage produced better net returns than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- NRs. 1,03,473e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“net returns and B:C ratio obtained from zero tillage (NRs. 1,03,473 and 2.6) were better than conventional tillage (NRs. 83,924 and 2.22)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage produced a better benefit to cost ratio than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- zero tillagee0
- Outcome
- B:C ratioe0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 2.6e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“net returns and B:C ratio obtained from zero tillage (NRs. 1,03,473 and 2.6) were better than conventional tillage (NRs. 83,924 and 2.22)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend both hybrids under zero tillage at 85 thousand plants per hectare.
- Treatment
- zero tillage systeme0
- Outcome
- optimum plant population of 85 thousand plants ha-1e0
- Setting
- western Chitwan, Rampur, Nepale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both hybrid maize varieties (Rampur hybrid 4 and Rampur hybrid 6) can be successfully grown under a zero tillage system with an optimum plant population of 85 thousand plants ha-1 to achieve a higher grain yield and better winter season net returns in western Chitwan, Rampur, Nepal”
The same questions in other 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.