Abstract
Abstract Cultivated lands in erosion prone agro-ecologies incessantly experience a substantial loss of productive soil and organic matter. Currently, the fertility-management and rainwater-conservation practices are given emphasis separately. This study appraised collectively both the water-conservation and fertility-management practices for the restoration of soil productivity in eroded farmlands. Field experiments were carried out on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) in eight farmer fields. Four fields of Missa soil series (Typic Ustochrept) and four of Rajar soil series (Typic Ustorthent) were selected. Treatments in each field were: farmers' practice as control without soil-water conservation, and with farmers' rate of fertilizer (per hectare 40 kg N + 30 kg P2O5); improved fertilization (per hectare 100 kg N, 60 kg P2O5, 2 kg Zn, and 1 kg B) without soil-water-conservation practices; soil-water-conservation practices (deep plowing, bund improvement, ploughing across the contour) + farmers' rate of fertilizers; and soil-water conservation + improved fertilization. Crop grain yields were at the highest with soil-water conservation + improved fertilization (per hectare wheat 3.31 Mg and 1.65 Mg in 2004–2005 and 2005–2006; and maize 4.55 Mg and 4.19 Mg in 2005 and 2006, respectively). The lowest yields were recorded under farmers' practice for both crops. Similar was the response for water-use efficiency and plant uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus, zinc, and boron. Missa soil series was more responsive than was Rajar to integrated soil-management practices. Synergistic application of soil-water conservation and improved fertilization practices significantly improved the crop yields, nutrient uptake, and water-use efficiency.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield was highest with soil-water conservation and improved fertilization in 2004–2005, at 3.31 Mg.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- soil-water conservation + improved fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- wheate0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 3.31 Mge0
- Qualifier
- 2004–2005e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop grain yields were at the highest with soil-water conservation + improved fertilization (per hectare wheat 3.31 Mg and 1.65 Mg in 2004–2005 and 2005–2006; and maize 4.55 Mg and 4.19 Mg in 2005 and 2006, respectively).”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield was highest with soil-water conservation and improved fertilization in 2005–2006, at 1.65 Mg.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- soil-water conservation + improved fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- wheate0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.65 Mge0
- Qualifier
- 2005–2006e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop grain yields were at the highest with soil-water conservation + improved fertilization (per hectare wheat 3.31 Mg and 1.65 Mg in 2004–2005 and 2005–2006; and maize 4.55 Mg and 4.19 Mg in 2005 and 2006, respectively).”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield was highest with soil-water conservation and improved fertilization in 2005, at 4.55 Mg.
- Treatment
- soil-water conservation + improved fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- maizee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 4.55 Mge0
- Qualifier
- 2005e0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop grain yields were at the highest with soil-water conservation + improved fertilization (per hectare wheat 3.31 Mg and 1.65 Mg in 2004–2005 and 2005–2006; and maize 4.55 Mg and 4.19 Mg in 2005 and 2006, respectively).”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield was highest with soil-water conservation and improved fertilization in 2006, at 4.19 Mg.
- Treatment
- soil-water conservation + improved fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- maizee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 4.19 Mge0
- Qualifier
- 2006e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop grain yields were at the highest with soil-water conservation + improved fertilization (per hectare wheat 3.31 Mg and 1.65 Mg in 2004–2005 and 2005–2006; and maize 4.55 Mg and 4.19 Mg in 2005 and 2006, respectively).”
Claim · model-written summary
Both crops had their lowest yields under farmers' practice.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The lowest yields were recorded under farmers' practice for both crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
The integrated practices significantly improved crop yields, nutrient uptake and water-use efficiency.
- Treatment
- soil-water conservation and improved fertilization practicese0
- Outcome
- crop yields, nutrient uptake, and water-use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Synergistic application of soil-water conservation and improved fertilization practices significantly improved the crop yields, nutrient uptake, and water-use efficiency.”
Claim · model-written summary
Missa soil series responded more than Rajar to integrated soil management.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Missa soil series was more responsive than was Rajar to integrated soil-management practices.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
158 papers more in this group
See all 162 papers →fertilization · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
97 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
121 papers more in this group
See all 125 papers →soil water · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.