Abstract
In 1969 and 1971 at Hissar, pearl millet [P. americanum] cv. HB 3 was grown with water harvesting from plots 20 X 10 m with a 3% slope on either edge. At Bawal in 1972 and '73, pearl millet was also grown under 50% inter-row water-harvesting conditions, with or without mulching. Inter-row water harvesting increased soil m.c. throughout the profile and throughout the growing period. Grain yield/area sown increased by 22% over the traditional sowing methods with 50% water harvesting in micro-plots. Yield was not significantly affected by mulching. It was recommended that the efficiency of these methods is studied during yr of sub-opt. and erratic rainfall
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Inter-row water harvesting increased soil moisture through the profile and growing period.
- Taxon
- pearl millet
Cenchrus americanuse1 - Treatment
- Inter-row water harvestinge0
- Outcome
- soil m.c.e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Inter-row water harvesting increased soil m.c. throughout the profile and throughout the growing period”
e1“pearl millet was also grown under 50% inter-row water-harvesting conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Fifty-percent water harvesting increased grain yield per sown area by 22% versus traditional sowing.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
- Treatment
- 50% water harvestinge0
- Outcome
- Grain yield/area sowne0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- traditional sowing methodse0
- Setting
- micro-plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yield/area sown increased by 22% over the traditional sowing methods with 50% water harvesting in micro-plots”
e1“pearl millet was also grown under 50% inter-row water-harvesting conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching did not significantly change yield.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
- Treatment
- mulchinge0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Comparator
- without mulchinge1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was not significantly affected by mulching”
e1“pearl millet was also grown under 50% inter-row water-harvesting conditions, with or without mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend testing method efficiency during suboptimal and erratic rainfall years.
- Taxon
- pearl milletCenchrus americanuse1
- Outcome
- efficiency of these methods is studied during yr of sub-opt. and erratic rainfalle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It was recommended that the efficiency of these methods is studied during yr of sub-opt. and erratic rainfall”
e1“pearl millet was also grown under 50% inter-row water-harvesting conditions”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 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.