Abstract
A study was conducted during 2000 - 01 to 2002 - 03 to explore the possibility of growing winter crops (post-rainy), mainly legumes during dry season in lowland rice fallow of eastern India (Dhenkanal, Orissa) with shallow water table (0.58-1.43 m). Four crops, i e groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), blackgram (Vigna mungo L. Hepper) and greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczk) were grown in winter season with supplemental irrigation after harvesting rainy season rice-oryza sativa L. Water balance and radiation interception of these crops were computed. Study revealed that owing to shallow water table, winter crops received sufficient soil water through upward flux and 52.6, 50.1, (h) 49.2 and 46.3% of crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward flux in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively without irrigating these crops. In addition to soil upward flux and residual soil water of profile, lirrigation increased grain yield (mean of 2 years) by 26, 32, 28 and 31% in groundnut, chickpea blackgram and greengram, respectively compared to no irrigation. Higher water-use efficiency of 3.52, 1.77, 2.75 and 2.42 kg/ha/mm was recorded with 1 supplemental irrigation in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively. Higher intercepted photosynthetically active radiation was observed with 2 irrigated crops with the values being 82, 79, 74, 75% in groundnut, chickpea, greengram and blackgram, respectively. The study amply revealed the scope of growing post-rainy season crops (groundnut, blackgram, greengram) profitably in rainfed shallow lowland rice fallow with utilization of residual soil water and soil upward flux.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
groundnut drew 52.6% of its crop water use from soil water upward flux without irrigation.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeae4 - Outcome
- crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward fluxe4
- Value
- 52.6e4
- Qualifier
- without irrigating these cropse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“52.6, 50.1, (h) 49.2 and 46.3% of crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward flux in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively without irrigating these crops”
Claim · model-written summary
chickpea drew 50.1% of its crop water use from soil water upward flux without irrigation.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume4 - Outcome
- crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward fluxe4
- Value
- 50.1e4
- Qualifier
- without irrigating these cropse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“52.6, 50.1, (h) 49.2 and 46.3% of crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward flux in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively without irrigating these crops”
Claim · model-written summary
blackgram drew 49.2% of its crop water use from soil water upward flux without irrigation.
- Taxon
- blackgram
Vigna mungoe4 - Outcome
- crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward fluxe4
- Value
- 49.2e4
- Qualifier
- without irrigating these cropse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“52.6, 50.1, (h) 49.2 and 46.3% of crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward flux in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively without irrigating these crops”
Claim · model-written summary
greengram drew 46.3% of its crop water use from soil water upward flux without irrigation.
- Taxon
- greengram
.jpg?width=60)
Vigna radiata var. radiatae4 - Outcome
- crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward fluxe4
- Value
- 46.3e4
- Qualifier
- without irrigating these cropse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e4“52.6, 50.1, (h) 49.2 and 46.3% of crop water uses were contributed through soil water upward flux in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively without irrigating these crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased groundnut grain yield by 26% over no irrigation (mean of 2 years).
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae5
- Treatment
- irrigatione5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 26e5
- Qualifier
- mean of 2 yearse5
- Comparator
- no irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“lirrigation increased grain yield (mean of 2 years) by 26, 32, 28 and 31% in groundnut, chickpea blackgram and greengram, respectively compared to no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased chickpea grain yield by 32% over no irrigation (mean of 2 years).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume5
- Treatment
- irrigatione5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 32e5
- Qualifier
- mean of 2 yearse5
- Comparator
- no irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“lirrigation increased grain yield (mean of 2 years) by 26, 32, 28 and 31% in groundnut, chickpea blackgram and greengram, respectively compared to no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased blackgram grain yield by 28% over no irrigation (mean of 2 years).
- Taxon
- blackgramVigna mungoe5
- Treatment
- irrigatione5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 28e5
- Qualifier
- mean of 2 yearse5
- Comparator
- no irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“lirrigation increased grain yield (mean of 2 years) by 26, 32, 28 and 31% in groundnut, chickpea blackgram and greengram, respectively compared to no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased greengram grain yield by 31% over no irrigation (mean of 2 years).
- Taxon
- greengramVigna radiata var. radiatae5
- Treatment
- irrigatione5
- Outcome
- grain yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 31e5
- Qualifier
- mean of 2 yearse5
- Comparator
- no irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“lirrigation increased grain yield (mean of 2 years) by 26, 32, 28 and 31% in groundnut, chickpea blackgram and greengram, respectively compared to no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
One supplemental irrigation gave groundnut a water-use efficiency of 3.52 kg/ha/mm.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae6
- Treatment
- 1 supplemental irrigatione6
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye6
- Direction
- Highere6
- Value
- 3.52e6
- Qualifier
- kg/ha/mme6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher water-use efficiency of 3.52, 1.77, 2.75 and 2.42 kg/ha/mm was recorded with 1 supplemental irrigation in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
One supplemental irrigation gave chickpea a water-use efficiency of 1.77 kg/ha/mm.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume6
- Treatment
- 1 supplemental irrigatione6
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye6
- Direction
- Highere6
- Value
- 1.77e6
- Qualifier
- kg/ha/mme6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher water-use efficiency of 3.52, 1.77, 2.75 and 2.42 kg/ha/mm was recorded with 1 supplemental irrigation in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
One supplemental irrigation gave blackgram a water-use efficiency of 2.75 kg/ha/mm.
- Taxon
- blackgramVigna mungoe6
- Treatment
- 1 supplemental irrigatione6
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye6
- Direction
- Highere6
- Value
- 2.75e6
- Qualifier
- kg/ha/mme6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher water-use efficiency of 3.52, 1.77, 2.75 and 2.42 kg/ha/mm was recorded with 1 supplemental irrigation in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
One supplemental irrigation gave greengram a water-use efficiency of 2.42 kg/ha/mm.
- Taxon
- greengramVigna radiata var. radiatae6
- Treatment
- 1 supplemental irrigatione6
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye6
- Direction
- Highere6
- Value
- 2.42e6
- Qualifier
- kg/ha/mme6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Higher water-use efficiency of 3.52, 1.77, 2.75 and 2.42 kg/ha/mm was recorded with 1 supplemental irrigation in groundnut, chickpea, blackgram and greengram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated groundnut intercepted a higher share of photosynthetically active radiation (82%).
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae7
- Treatment
- irrigatede7
- Outcome
- intercepted photosynthetically active radiatione7
- Direction
- Highere7
- Value
- 82e7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Higher intercepted photosynthetically active radiation was observed with 2 irrigated crops with the values being 82, 79, 74, 75% in groundnut, chickpea, greengram and blackgram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated chickpea intercepted a higher share of photosynthetically active radiation (79%).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume7
- Treatment
- irrigatede7
- Outcome
- intercepted photosynthetically active radiatione7
- Direction
- Highere7
- Value
- 79e7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Higher intercepted photosynthetically active radiation was observed with 2 irrigated crops with the values being 82, 79, 74, 75% in groundnut, chickpea, greengram and blackgram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated greengram intercepted a higher share of photosynthetically active radiation (74%).
- Taxon
- greengramVigna radiata var. radiatae7
- Treatment
- irrigatede7
- Outcome
- intercepted photosynthetically active radiatione7
- Direction
- Highere7
- Value
- 74e7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Higher intercepted photosynthetically active radiation was observed with 2 irrigated crops with the values being 82, 79, 74, 75% in groundnut, chickpea, greengram and blackgram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated blackgram intercepted a higher share of photosynthetically active radiation (75%).
- Taxon
- blackgramVigna mungoe7
- Treatment
- irrigatede7
- Outcome
- intercepted photosynthetically active radiatione7
- Direction
- Highere7
- Value
- 75e7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Higher intercepted photosynthetically active radiation was observed with 2 irrigated crops with the values being 82, 79, 74, 75% in groundnut, chickpea, greengram and blackgram, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-rainy groundnut, blackgram and greengram can be grown profitably in rainfed shallow lowland rice fallows using residual soil water and soil upward flux.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae7
- Treatment
- utilization of residual soil water and soil upward fluxe7
- Outcome
- scope of growing post-rainy season cropse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The study amply revealed the scope of growing post-rainy season crops (groundnut, blackgram, greengram) profitably in rainfed shallow lowland rice fallow with utilization of residual soil water and soil upward flux”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Vigna mungo (black gram)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Vigna mungo (black gram)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →irrigation · yield · Vigna mungo (black gram)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.