Abstract
Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.) lies not in reducing N rate and its number of splits but in lowering cost per unit production through higher yields. Field experiments were conducted on maize at the New Developmental Research Farm of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) Agricultural University Peshawar during summer 2002 (Y 1 ) and 2003 (Y 2 ) to investigate the effects of variable rates of N and its time of application on the net returns (NR) of maize (cultivar Azam) planted at low and high densities. The 2 × 3 × 6 factorial experiment was designed having two plant densities (D 1 = 60,000 and D 2 = 100,000 plants ha −1 ) and three N levels (N 1 = 60, N 2 = 120 and N 3 = 180 kg N ha −1 ) as main plots, and six split N applications: two equal (S 1 ), three unequal (S 2 ), three equal (S 3 ), four equal (S 4 ), five equal (S 5 ) and five unequal splits (S 6 ) applied at sowing and with first, second, third, and fourth irrigation at 2 wk intervals as subplots. Maize planted at high density gave about 18% higher NR than at low density, and the increase in NR was comparatively more (3%) in the second growing season than the first growing season. Net returns showed positive relationship with increase in N rates, and increased by 19,565 and 31,948 PKR ha −1 with 120 and 180 kg N ha −1 , respectively as compared with 60 kg N ha −1 The increase in NR with N 3 was 39% greater than N 2 . Among the N timings, S 5 showed the highest NR (16,646 PKR ha −1 ) and was 3, 21, and 97% greater than S 6 , S 4 , and S 3, , respectively. The NR from S 2 was negative (−783 PKR) when compared with S 1 (control). In conclusion, the findings suggests that growing maize at high density applied with 180 kg N ha −1 in five equal or unequal splits could be more economical in terms of NR in the study area.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Maize planted at high density gave about 18% higher net returns than at low density.
- Treatment
- high densitye7
- Outcome
- NRe7
- Direction
- highere7
- Value
- 18%e7
- Comparator
- low densitye7
- Setting
- New Developmental Research Farm of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) Agricultural University Peshaware6
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Maize planted at high density gave about 18% higher NR than at low density”
e6“Field experiments were conducted on maize at the New Developmental Research Farm of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) Agricultural University Peshawar during summer 2002 (Y 1 ) and 2003 (Y 2 )”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in net returns was about 3% larger in the second growing season than in the first.
- Outcome
- increase in NRe1
- Direction
- moree1
- Value
- 3%e1
- Comparator
- first growing seasone1
- Setting
- second growing seasone1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the increase in NR was comparatively more (3%) in the second growing season than the first growing season”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns increased by 19,565 PKR per ha with 120 kg N per ha compared with 60 kg N per ha.
- Treatment
- 120 and 180 kg N ha −1e1
- Outcome
- Net returnse1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 19,565e1
- Comparator
- 60 kg N ha −1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Net returns showed positive relationship with increase in N rates, and increased by 19,565 and 31,948 PKR ha −1 with 120 and 180 kg N ha −1 , respectively as compared with 60 kg N ha −1”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns increased by 31,948 PKR per ha with 180 kg N per ha compared with 60 kg N per ha.
- Treatment
- 180 kg N ha −1e1
- Outcome
- Net returnse1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 31,948 PKR ha −1e1
- Comparator
- 60 kg N ha −1e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Net returns showed positive relationship with increase in N rates, and increased by 19,565 and 31,948 PKR ha −1 with 120 and 180 kg N ha −1 , respectively as compared with 60 kg N ha −1”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns showed a positive relationship with increasing N rates.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Net returns showed positive relationship with increase in N rates, and increased by 19,565 and 31,948 PKR ha −1 with 120 and 180 kg N ha −1 , respectively as compared with 60 kg N ha −1”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in net returns with 180 kg N ha −1 (N 3) was 39% greater than with 120 kg N ha −1 (N 2).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The increase in NR with N 3 was 39% greater than N 2”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Split N application S 5 gave the highest net returns, 16,646 PKR per ha, among the N timings.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the N timings, S 5 showed the highest NR (16,646 PKR ha −1) and was 3, 21, and 97% greater than S 6 , S 4 , and S 3, , respectively”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Split N application S 5 gave net returns 3% greater than S 6.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the N timings, S 5 showed the highest NR (16,646 PKR ha −1) and was 3, 21, and 97% greater than S 6 , S 4 , and S 3, , respectively”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Split N application S 5 gave net returns 21% greater than S 4.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the N timings, S 5 showed the highest NR (16,646 PKR ha −1) and was 3, 21, and 97% greater than S 6 , S 4 , and S 3, , respectively”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Split N application S 5 gave net returns 97% greater than S 3.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the N timings, S 5 showed the highest NR (16,646 PKR ha −1) and was 3, 21, and 97% greater than S 6 , S 4 , and S 3, , respectively”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Split N application S 2 gave negative net returns (−783 PKR per ha) compared with S 1 (control).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The NR from S 2 was negative (−783 PKR) when compared with S 1 (control)”
e0“Getting maximum benefits from maize ( Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Growing maize at high density with 180 kg N per ha in five equal or unequal splits could be more economical in terms of net returns in the study area.
- Treatment
- high density applied with 180 kg N ha −1 in five equal or unequal splitse5
- Outcome
- more economical in terms of NRe5
- Setting
- the study areae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“growing maize at high density applied with 180 kg N ha −1 in five equal or unequal splits could be more economical in terms of NR in the study area”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.