Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during 1995-96 and 1996-97 at Nauni (Solan) on loamy sand 'Inceptisol' to study the effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch as compared to surface imgation on green pod yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea (Pisum sativum Var. Lincoln) cultivation. The treatments comprised different irrigation levels based on pan evaporation, pan and crop factors under plastic mulch and unmulched conditions. Drip irrigation at 'V' volume of water applied gave significantly higher yield of pea (89.6 q ha -1 ) as compared to surface irrigation (59.9 q ha -1 ). Plastic mulch plus drip irrigation further raised the yield to 105.4 q ha -1 . Water use efficiency under drip irrigation alone, drip irrigation plus plastic mulch and surface irrigation was 1.88, 2.21 and 1.06 q pod/ha cm, respectively. Drip irrigation besides giving a saving of 32 per cent water resulted in 49.5 per cent higher yield as compared to surface irrigation. The benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation under drip alone, drip plus plastic mulch and surface irrigation was 2.06, 2.11 and 1.93, respectively.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation gave significantly higher pea yield (89.6 q ha -1) than surface irrigation (59.9 q ha -1)
- Taxon
- pea
Lathyrus oleraceust0 - Treatment
- Drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 89.6 q ha -1e1
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione1
- Setting
- Nauni (Solan)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e0“A field experiment was conducted during 1995-96 and 1996-97 at Nauni (Solan)”
e1“Drip irrigation at 'V' volume of water applied gave significantly higher yield of pea (89.6 q ha -1 ) as compared to surface irrigation (59.9 q ha -1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic mulch plus drip irrigation raised pea yield to 105.4 q ha -1
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- Plastic mulch plus drip irrigatione2
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- raisede2
- Value
- 105.4 q ha -1e2
- Comparator
- drip irrigatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e2“Plastic mulch plus drip irrigation further raised the yield to 105.4 q ha -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency under drip irrigation alone was 1.88 q pod/ha cm, higher than under surface irrigation (1.06)
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation alonee3
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye3
- Direction
- higherinferrede3
- Value
- 1.88e3
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e3“Water use efficiency under drip irrigation alone, drip irrigation plus plastic mulch and surface irrigation was 1.88, 2.21 and 1.06 q pod/ha cm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency under drip irrigation plus plastic mulch was 2.21 q pod/ha cm, higher than under surface irrigation (1.06)
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation plus plastic mulche3
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye3
- Direction
- higherinferrede3
- Value
- 2.21e3
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e3“Water use efficiency under drip irrigation alone, drip irrigation plus plastic mulch and surface irrigation was 1.88, 2.21 and 1.06 q pod/ha cm, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation saved 32 per cent water compared with surface irrigation
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- Drip irrigatione4
- Outcome
- watere4
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede4
- Value
- 32 per cente4
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e4“Drip irrigation besides giving a saving of 32 per cent water resulted in 49.5 per cent higher yield as compared to surface irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation raised pea yield by 49.5 per cent compared with surface irrigation
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- Drip irrigatione4
- Outcome
- yielde4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 49.5 per cente4
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e4“Drip irrigation besides giving a saving of 32 per cent water resulted in 49.5 per cent higher yield as compared to surface irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Benefit-cost ratio of pea under drip irrigation alone was 2.06, higher than under surface irrigation (1.93)
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- drip alonee5
- Outcome
- benefit-cost ratioe5
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Value
- 2.06e5
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e5“The benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation under drip alone, drip plus plastic mulch and surface irrigation was 2.06, 2.11 and 1.93”
Claim · model-written summary
Benefit-cost ratio of pea under drip irrigation plus plastic mulch was 2.11, higher than under surface irrigation (1.93)
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Treatment
- drip plus plastic mulche5
- Outcome
- benefit-cost ratioe5
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Value
- 2.11e5
- Comparator
- surface irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch on yield, water use efficiency and benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation”
e5“The benefit-cost ratio of pea cultivation under drip alone, drip plus plastic mulch and surface irrigation was 2.06, 2.11 and 1.93”
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 →irrigation · physiology: water · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →mulching · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →mulching · physiology: water · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.