Abstract
Large variability and uncertainty of rainfall are the main limiting factors for crop growth in rainfed agriculture. Agriculture water management interventions are considered as suitable adoption strategy to enhance crop yield, productivity and income in rainfed condition. Three-year experimental data collected at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India are analysed to study the impact of in-situ interventions (tillage and crop residue) on field water balance and grain yield under the two different cropping systems (maize + chickpea sequential and maize/pigeon pea intercropping). One dimensional water balance model is calibrated to capture field hydrology (soil water, surface runoff). Weather data calibrated for 36 years showed that incorporating crop residues reduced surface runoff by 28% compared to control fields. However, the impact of tillage and residue treatment on soil water was not consistent throughout the growing period. Water productivity values for intercropping systems (WUE = 0.61 to 1.49 kg m–3) were relatively higher compared to sequential cropping systems (WUE = 0.47 to 1.06 kg m–3). Second crop in sequential cropping system often suffered from water stress that led to poor crop yield. However, a few rain events at the end of the monsoon period were beneficial to second crop. Simulation results indicated that the conservation agriculture could save up to 30% yield loss incurred due to water stress during deficit rainfall compared to conventional agricultural practices.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Crop residues reduced modeled surface runoff by 28% against control fields.
- Treatment
- incorporating crop residuese0
- Outcome
- surface runoffe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Comparator
- control fieldse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“incorporating crop residues reduced surface runoff by 28% compared to control fields”
e1“maize + chickpea sequential and maize/pigeon pea intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and residue effects on soil water were inconsistent across the growing period.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the impact of tillage and residue treatment on soil water was not consistent throughout the growing period”
e1“maize + chickpea sequential and maize/pigeon pea intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had relatively higher water productivity than sequential cropping.
- Treatment
- intercropping systemse0
- Outcome
- Water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.61 to 1.49 kg m–3e0
- Qualifier
- 0.47 to 1.06 kg m–3e0
- Comparator
- sequential cropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water productivity values for intercropping systems (WUE = 0.61 to 1.49 kg m–3) were relatively higher compared to sequential cropping systems (WUE = 0.47 to 1.06 kg m–3)”
e1“maize/pigeon pea intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
The second sequential crop often had poor yield under water stress.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- poor crop yielde0
- Direction
- poore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Second crop in sequential cropping system often suffered from water stress that led to poor crop yield”
e1“maize + chickpea sequential”
Claim · model-written summary
Late monsoon rain events benefited the second sequential crop.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- rain events at the end of the monsoon periode0
- Outcome
- beneficial to second crope0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a few rain events at the end of the monsoon period were beneficial to second crop”
e1“maize + chickpea sequential”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulations indicated conservation agriculture could save up to 30% yield loss during deficit rainfall.
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee0
- Outcome
- yield losse0
- Direction
- savee0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Qualifier
- during deficit rainfalle0
- Comparator
- conventional agricultural practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“conservation agriculture could save up to 30% yield loss incurred due to water stress during deficit rainfall compared to conventional agricultural practices”
e1“maize + chickpea sequential and maize/pigeon pea intercropping”
The same questions in other papers
organic · soil: physics · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →intercropping · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 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
- positive
- no effect
- negative
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.