Paper · 2001 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Polyethylene mulching for enhancing crop productivity and water use efficiency in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and maize (Zea mays) cropping system

P. NALAYINI; R. ANANDHAM; K. SANKARANA AYANAN; et al.

6
claims
6
verbatim quotes
17
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted consecutively for 2 years at Coimbatore between 2002-03 and 2003-04 crop seasons during winter (August - February). Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) followed by summer (March - May), maize (Zea mays L.) crops using different thickness black polyethylene mulch film of 30, 50, 75 and 100 micron were evaluated against conventionally planted (no mulch) cotton - maize cropping system for moisture conservation and enhanced crop production efficiency. Higher uptake of nutrients due to higher temperature coupled with higher available soil moisture caused significant increase in root cation exchange capacity, nutrient uptake, dry matter accumulation and partitioning of assimilates under polyethylene mulching with an average yield enhancement of 1.83 to 1.90 fold in cotton and 1.95 to 2.10 fold in maize crops besides saving water. The water requirement of mulched cotton was 58.63 ha-cm whereas conventionally grown cotton was 84.19 ha-cm. The water use efficiency of mulched cotton was 43.2 kglha-cm as against 16.6 kglha-cm for conventionally planted no mulch cotton crop. The poly-mulched cotton-maize system recorded the highest net return (Rs 74,1781ha) and benefit cost ratio (1.68) as against the conventional system (Rs 29,863 and 1.04).

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching increased cotton yield 1.83 to 1.90 fold.

Treatment
polyethylene mulchinge0
Outcome
yield enhancemente0
Direction
enhancemente0
Value
1.83 to 1.90 folde0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“under polyethylene mulching with an average yield enhancement of 1.83 to 1.90 fold in cotton and 1.95 to 2.10 fold in maize crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–841 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulching increased maize yield 1.95 to 2.10 fold.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
polyethylene mulchinge0
Outcome
yield enhancemente0
Direction
enhancemente0
Value
1.95 to 2.10 folde0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“under polyethylene mulching with an average yield enhancement of 1.83 to 1.90 fold in cotton and 1.95 to 2.10 fold in maize crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–841 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulched cotton required 58.63 ha-cm water versus 84.19 ha-cm conventionally.

Treatment
mulchede0
Outcome
water requiremente0
Value
58.63 ha-cme0
Qualifier
84.19 ha-cme0
Comparator
conventionally grown cottone0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The water requirement of mulched cotton was 58.63 ha-cm whereas conventionally grown cotton was 84.19 ha-cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 864–971 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulched cotton had water use efficiency of 43.2 kglha-cm versus 16.6 kglha-cm without mulch.

Treatment
mulchede0
Outcome
water use efficiencye0
Value
43.2 kglha-cme0
Qualifier
16.6 kglha-cme0
Comparator
no mulch cotton crope0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The water use efficiency of mulched cotton was 43.2 kglha-cm as against 16.6 kglha-cm for conventionally planted no mulch cotton crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 973–1106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mulched cotton-maize system had the highest net return.

Taxon
cotton-maizee0
Treatment
poly-mulchede0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
higheste0
Value
Rs 74,1781hae0
Comparator
conventional systeme0

Verbatim

e0

“The poly-mulched cotton-maize system recorded the highest net return (Rs 74,1781ha) and benefit cost ratio (1.68) as against the conventional system (Rs 29,863 and 1.04)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1277 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mulched cotton-maize system had a benefit cost ratio of 1.68.

Taxon
cotton-maizee0
Treatment
poly-mulchede0
Outcome
benefit cost ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1.68e0
Comparator
conventional systeme0

Verbatim

e0

“The poly-mulched cotton-maize system recorded the highest net return (Rs 74,1781ha) and benefit cost ratio (1.68) as against the conventional system (Rs 29,863 and 1.04)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1277 · show in text ↑

mulching · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 59 positive, 4 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. negative

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

364 papers: 330 positive, 34 negative or no effect

329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative
    Without nitrogen in the wet year, mulched plots yielded much less.

    Effect of a Killed Sod Mulch on Nitrate Movement and Corn Yield1 · 1973 · compared with conventionally‐tilled no nitrogen treatment

    Opposite direction

360 papers more in this group

See all 364 papers →

mulching · physiology: water · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

18 papers: 18 positive, 0 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 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.