Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at ICAR Research Complex for North-Eastern Hills Region Tripura Centre, Tripura (W), to study effect of tillage and crop-establishment techniques on productivity, profitability and soil health under maize (Zea mays L.)maizefield pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system. The experiment comprised 6 treatments, viz. conventional tillage with flat bed planting (CT-FB), conventional tillage with ridge and furrow plant- ing (CT-RF), conventional tillage with raised bed planting (CT-RB), no-till with flat bed planting (NT-FB), no-till with ridge and furrow planting (NT-RF) and no-till with raised bed planting (NT-RB). Green cobs yield of summer maize was 25.327.4% and field pea seed yield was 17.932.2% higher under NT-RF and NT-RB than CT-RF. Rainy season (kharif) maize grown under NT-RF recorded 12.66% less grain yield than the CT-RF. The NT-RB resulted in the maximum system productivity to the tune of 16.34 and 14.55 t/ha in 201213 and 201314, respectively. The average system productivity was 6.1% higher under systems than to CT systems. Net returns and benefit: cost ratios showed the similar trends as shown by system productivity. Under the NT-FB, soil organic carbon was 13.2% higher than CT-FB. However, the CT-RB recorded higher soil pH as compared to all the other treatments. The available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were higher with NT systems compared to CT systems. There- fore, cultivation of maizemaizefield pea cropping system under NT-RB system may be adopted for higher pro- ductivity and profitability and for sustaining the soil health.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Summer maize green cob yield was higher under NT-RF and NT-RB than CT-RF.
- Treatment
- NT-RF and NT-RBe0
- Outcome
- Green cobs yield of summer maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 25.327.4%e0
- Comparator
- CT-RFe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Green cobs yield of summer maize was 25.327.4% and field pea seed yield was 17.932.2% higher under NT-RF and NT-RB than CT-RF”
Claim · model-written summary
Field pea seed yield was higher under NT-RF and NT-RB than CT-RF.
Verbatim
e0“field pea seed yield was 17.932.2% higher under NT-RF and NT-RB than CT-RF”
Claim · model-written summary
Rainy season maize grain yield under NT-RF was 12.66% lower than CT-RF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rainy season (kharif) maize grown under NT-RF recorded 12.66% less grain yield than the CT-RF”
Claim · model-written summary
NT-RB gave maximum system productivity of 16.34 t/ha in 201213.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The NT-RB resulted in the maximum system productivity to the tune of 16.34 and 14.55 t/ha in 201213 and 201314, respectively”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
NT-RB gave maximum system productivity of 14.55 t/ha in 201314.
- Treatment
- NT-RBe0
- Outcome
- maximum system productivitye0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 14.55 t/hae0
- Qualifier
- 201314e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The NT-RB resulted in the maximum system productivity to the tune of 16.34 and 14.55 t/ha in 201213 and 201314, respectively”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Average system productivity was 6.1% higher under NT than CT systems.
- Treatment
- systemse0
- Outcome
- average system productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 6.1%e0
- Comparator
- CT systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average system productivity was 6.1% higher under systems than to CT systems”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns and benefit:cost ratios followed system productivity trends.
- Outcome
- Net returns and benefit: cost ratiose0
- Qualifier
- similar trends as shown by system productivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Net returns and benefit: cost ratios showed the similar trends as shown by system productivity”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon under NT-FB was 13.2% higher than CT-FB.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under the NT-FB, soil organic carbon was 13.2% higher than CT-FB”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
CT-RB had higher soil pH than the other treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the CT-RB recorded higher soil pH as compared to all the other treatments”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were higher under NT than CT systems.
- Treatment
- NT systemse0
- Outcome
- available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassiume0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- CT systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were higher with NT systems compared to CT systems”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend NT-RB for the maize–maize–field pea system to improve productivity, profitability and soil health.
Verbatim
e0“cultivation of maizemaizefield pea cropping system under NT-RB system may be adopted for higher pro- ductivity and profitability and for sustaining the soil health”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →tillage · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
52 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
790 papers in the same direction as this paper · 209 in the opposite direction · 16 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.