Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at the Project Directorate for Cropping Systems Research, Modipuram, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, from the rainy season of 2000 to winter season of 2003, to evaluate the performance of the zero till drilling, strip till drilling, bed planting and conventional sowing in wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Fiori & Paol.) under varying sowing or planting methods of rice (Oryza sativa L.), viz direct dry seeding, direct seeding of sprouted seeds, manual transplanting, and mechanical transplanting by self-propelled rice transplanter. The mechanical transplanting of rice resulted in 6.25 tonnes/ha grain and 6.94 tonnes/ha straw yields that were at par with manual transplanting but significantly higher than both direct-seeding methods. The mechanical transplanting was most cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring lowest specific energy (408 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.27/kg), and providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (2.34) and energy output : input ratio (7.36). In wheat,strip till drilling resulted in higher growth, grain (5.67 tonnes/ha) and straw (7.82 tonnes/ha) yields, followed by zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed planting. The strip till drilling was most cost-effective and energy-efficient method, requiring lowest specific energy (430 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 1.91/ kg), providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (3.67) and energy output : input ratio (6.98). However, conventional sowing was least cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring maximum specific energy (543 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.52/ kg). and providing minimum benefit : cost ratio (2.81) and energy output : input ratio (5.52).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical rice transplanting yielded 6.25 tonnes/ha grain, equalled manual transplanting and exceeded direct seeding.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- mechanical transplantinge0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6.25 tonnes/hae0
- Qualifier
- at par with manual transplantinge0
- Comparator
- both direct-seeding methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mechanical transplanting of rice resulted in 6.25 tonnes/ha grain and 6.94 tonnes/ha straw yields that were at par with manual transplanting but significantly higher than both direct-seeding methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical rice transplanting yielded 6.94 tonnes/ha straw, equalled manual transplanting and exceeded direct seeding.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- mechanical transplantinge0
- Outcome
- straw yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6.94 tonnes/hae0
- Qualifier
- at par with manual transplantinge0
- Comparator
- both direct-seeding methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mechanical transplanting of rice resulted in 6.25 tonnes/ha grain and 6.94 tonnes/ha straw yields that were at par with manual transplanting but significantly higher than both direct-seeding methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical rice transplanting had the lowest specific energy, 408 kcal/kg.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- mechanical transplantinge0
- Outcome
- specific energye0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 408 kcal/kge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mechanical transplanting was most cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring lowest specific energy (408 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.27/kg), and providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (2.34) and energy output : input ratio (7.36)”
t0“rice ( Oryza sativa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical rice transplanting had the lowest specific cost, Rs 2.27/kg.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- mechanical transplantinge0
- Outcome
- specific coste0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- Rs 2.27/kge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mechanical transplanting was most cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring lowest specific energy (408 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.27/kg), and providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (2.34) and energy output : input ratio (7.36)”
t0“rice ( Oryza sativa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical rice transplanting maximized benefit to cost ratio at 2.34.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- mechanical transplantinge0
- Outcome
- benefit : cost ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 2.34e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mechanical transplanting was most cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring lowest specific energy (408 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.27/kg), and providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (2.34) and energy output : input ratio (7.36)”
t0“rice ( Oryza sativa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical rice transplanting maximized energy output to input ratio at 7.36.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- mechanical transplantinge0
- Outcome
- energy output : input ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 7.36e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mechanical transplanting was most cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring lowest specific energy (408 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.27/kg), and providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (2.34) and energy output : input ratio (7.36)”
t0“rice ( Oryza sativa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling increased wheat growth relative to other planting methods.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In wheat,strip till drilling resulted in higher growth, grain (5.67 tonnes/ha) and straw (7.82 tonnes/ha) yields, followed by zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling gave higher wheat grain yield of 5.67 tonnes/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.67 tonnes/hae0
- Comparator
- zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In wheat,strip till drilling resulted in higher growth, grain (5.67 tonnes/ha) and straw (7.82 tonnes/ha) yields, followed by zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling gave higher wheat straw yield of 7.82 tonnes/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- strawe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 7.82 tonnes/hae0
- Comparator
- zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In wheat,strip till drilling resulted in higher growth, grain (5.67 tonnes/ha) and straw (7.82 tonnes/ha) yields, followed by zero till drilling, conventional sowing and bed planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling minimized wheat specific energy at 430 kcal/kg.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- specific energye0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 430 kcal/kge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The strip till drilling was most cost-effective and energy-efficient method, requiring lowest specific energy (430 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 1.91/ kg), providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (3.67) and energy output : input ratio (6.98)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling minimized wheat specific cost at Rs 1.91/ kg.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- specific coste0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- Rs 1.91/ kge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The strip till drilling was most cost-effective and energy-efficient method, requiring lowest specific energy (430 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 1.91/ kg), providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (3.67) and energy output : input ratio (6.98)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling maximized wheat benefit to cost ratio at 3.67.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- benefit : cost ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 3.67e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The strip till drilling was most cost-effective and energy-efficient method, requiring lowest specific energy (430 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 1.91/ kg), providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (3.67) and energy output : input ratio (6.98)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip till drilling maximized wheat energy output to input ratio at 6.98.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- strip till drillinge0
- Outcome
- energy output : input ratioe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 6.98e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The strip till drilling was most cost-effective and energy-efficient method, requiring lowest specific energy (430 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 1.91/ kg), providing maximum benefit : cost ratio (3.67) and energy output : input ratio (6.98)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional wheat sowing required maximum specific energy of 543 kcal/kg.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conventional sowinge0
- Outcome
- specific energye0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 543 kcal/kge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional sowing was least cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring maximum specific energy (543 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.52/ kg)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional wheat sowing required maximum specific cost of Rs 2.52/ kg.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conventional sowinge0
- Outcome
- specific coste0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- Rs 2.52/ kge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional sowing was least cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring maximum specific energy (543 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.52/ kg)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional wheat sowing had minimum benefit to cost ratio of 2.81.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conventional sowinge0
- Outcome
- benefit : cost ratioe0
- Direction
- minimume0
- Value
- 2.81e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional sowing was least cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring maximum specific energy (543 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.52/ kg). and providing minimum benefit : cost ratio (2.81) and energy output : input ratio (5.52)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional wheat sowing had minimum energy output to input ratio of 5.52.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conventional sowinge0
- Outcome
- energy output : input ratioe0
- Direction
- minimume0
- Value
- 5.52e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conventional sowing was least cost-effective and energy-efficient, requiring maximum specific energy (543 kcal/kg) and specific cost (Rs 2.52/ kg). and providing minimum benefit : cost ratio (2.81) and energy output : input ratio (5.52)”
t0“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →transplanting · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction · 12 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
172 papers more in this group
See all 176 papers →tillage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 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
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
1,074 papers more in this group
See all 1,078 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.