Abstract
Rice ( Oryza sativa L.)–wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) is the major cropping system occupying 13.5 million ha in the Indo‐Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Conventional‐tillage practices are resource and cost intensive. A 7‐yr study evaluated six treatments (T) involving three tillage methods and two rice establishment methods on crop yield, water productivity, and economic profitability in a rice–wheat rotation. Average rice yields in the conventional practice of puddling and transplanting without (T1) and with (T2) mid‐season alternate wetting‐drying were highest (7.81–8.10 Mg ha −1 ) and increased with time (0.26 Mg ha −1 yr −1 ) in T2. Compared to T1, rice yields in direct drill‐seeding with zero‐tillage averaged 16% lower on flat (T5) and 43% lower in raised beds (T3). Rice yield in raised beds (T3 and T4) decreased with time (0.14–0.45 Mg ha −1 yr −1 ). Conversely, wheat yielded 18% higher after zero compared to conventional‐tillage. Treatment 2, despite low soil matric potential during vegetative development, had higher water productivity with 25% less water use compared with T1 and 19% less compared with other treatments. Conventional‐tillage and crop establishment practices had higher net cash return in rice but in wheat it was higher with zero‐tillage. Overall, T2 and T5 had the highest net returns (∼1225US$) and T3 and T4 had the lowest (747–846 US$) in the rice–wheat system. Zero‐tillage on flat beds (T5), however, would conceivably be more sustainable than the conventional T2 in the long‐run. Yields of zero‐tillage with direct‐seeding of rice on flat beds (T5) must improve before adoption occurs.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Rice yield under T1 and T2 was highest at 7.81–8.10 Mg ha −1.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- puddling and transplantinge0
- Outcome
- rice yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 7.81–8.10 Mg ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average rice yields in the conventional practice of puddling and transplanting without (T1) and with (T2) mid‐season alternate wetting‐drying were highest (7.81–8.10 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 rice yield increased over time by 0.26 Mg ha −1 yr −1.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- rice yieldse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.26 Mg ha −1 yr −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased with time (0.26 Mg ha −1 yr −1 ) in T2”
t0“Rice–Wheat”
t1“Rice–Wheat”
e1“Average rice yields in the conventional practice of puddling and transplanting without (T1) and with (T2) mid‐season alternate wetting‐drying were highest (7.81–8.10 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Flat zero-tillage direct-drilled rice yielded 16% less than T1.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- direct drill‐seeding with zero‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- rice yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 16%e0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to T1, rice yields in direct drill‐seeding with zero‐tillage averaged 16% lower on flat (T5)”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised-bed zero-tillage direct-drilled rice yielded 43% less than T1.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- raised beds (T3)e0
- Outcome
- rice yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 43%e0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to T1, rice yields in direct drill‐seeding with zero‐tillage averaged 16% lower on flat (T5) and 43% lower in raised beds (T3)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rice yield in raised beds fell over time by 0.14–0.45 Mg ha −1 yr −1.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- raised beds (T3 and T4)e0
- Outcome
- Rice yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 0.14–0.45 Mg ha −1 yr −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rice yield in raised beds (T3 and T4) decreased with time (0.14–0.45 Mg ha −1 yr −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat yielded 18% more after zero tillage than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- zeroe0
- Outcome
- wheat yieldede0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 18%e0
- Comparator
- conventional‐tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat yielded 18% higher after zero compared to conventional‐tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 had higher water productivity than T1.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Treatment 2e0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment 2, despite low soil matric potential during vegetative development, had higher water productivity with 25% less water use compared with T1”
t0“Rice”
t1“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 used 25% less water than T1.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Treatment 2e0
- Outcome
- water usee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatment 2, despite low soil matric potential during vegetative development, had higher water productivity with 25% less water use compared with T1”
t0“Rice”
t1“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 used 19% less water than other treatments.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Treatment 2e1
- Outcome
- water usee1
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“19% less compared with other treatments”
t0“Rice”
t1“Rice”
e1“Treatment 2, despite low soil matric potential during vegetative development, had higher water productivity with 25% less water use compared with T1”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage and establishment had higher rice net cash return.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- Conventional‐tillage and crop establishment practicese0
- Outcome
- net cash returne0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conventional‐tillage and crop establishment practices had higher net cash return in rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage had higher wheat net cash return.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- zero‐tillagee0
- Outcome
- net cash returne1
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in wheat it was higher with zero‐tillage”
t0“Rice–Wheat”
t1“Rice–Wheat”
e1“Conventional‐tillage and crop establishment practices had higher net cash return in rice”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 and T5 had the highest system net returns, about 1225US$.
- Taxon
- Rice–WheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- T2 and T5e0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- ∼1225US$e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T2 and T5 had the highest net returns (∼1225US$)”
t0“Rice–Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 and T4 had the lowest system net returns, 747–846 US$.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- T3 and T4e0
- Outcome
- net returnse1
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 747–846 US$e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“T3 and T4 had the lowest (747–846 US$) in the rice–wheat system”
t0“Rice–Wheat”
t1“Rice–Wheat”
e1“T2 and T5 had the highest net returns (∼1225US$)”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors consider T5 potentially more sustainable in the long run than T2.
- Taxon
- rice–wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Zero‐tillage on flat beds (T5)e0
- Outcome
- more sustainablee0
- Qualifier
- in the long‐rune0
- Comparator
- conventional T2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zero‐tillage on flat beds (T5), however, would conceivably be more sustainable than the conventional T2 in the long‐run”
t0“Rice–Wheat”
t1“Rice–Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors say T5 rice yields must improve before adoption.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- zero‐tillage with direct‐seeding of rice on flat beds (T5)e0
- Outcome
- must improve before adoption occurse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of zero‐tillage with direct‐seeding of rice on flat beds (T5) must improve before adoption occurs”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
586 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 27 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
725 papers more in this group
See all 729 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
- no effect
- negative
- negative
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
- positive
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.