Abstract
Field experiment was conducted at Zonal Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, during kharif 2014 on red sandy loam soil to investigate the effect of spacing and nutrient levels on growth and yield of finger millet. Experiment was conducted by using randomised complete block design with 3 replications and 8 treatments comprising of two spacings (45 X 45 cm and 60 X 60 cm) with three levels of NPK (50, 75 and 100 % RDF) compared with farmer’s method of guni planting (60 X 60 cm with only FYM) and UAS package of practice. Study revealed that at 30, 60 and 90 DAS, significantly higher plant height (31.20 cm, 78.29 cm, 90.80 cm, respectively), leaf area (1137 cm2 plant-1, 7184 cm2 plant-1 and 26322 cm2 plant-1, respectively), total dry matter (2.06 g plant-1, 10.58 g plant-1 and 20.62 g plant-1, respectively), RGR (0.422 g day-1 dm2 and 0.284 g day-1 dm2 at 30-60 days and 60-90 days interval, respectively), CGR (7.230 g dm-2 day-1 and 5.841 g dm-2 day-1 at 30-60 days and 60-90 days interval, respectively), NAR (0.0637 g day-1 dm2 and 0.0539 g day-1 dm2 at 30-60 days and 60-90 days interval, respectively) and seed yield (4166 kg ha-1) were recorded with spacing of 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
The 60 x 60 cm plus 100% RDF treatment produced significantly higher plant height.
- Taxon
- Finger Millet
Eleusine coracanat0 - Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione1
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 31.20 cm, 78.29 cm, 90.80 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly higher plant height (31.20 cm, 78.29 cm, 90.80 cm, respectively)”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced significantly higher leaf area.
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione1
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 1137 cm2 plant-1, 7184 cm2 plant-1 and 26322 cm2 plant-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf area (1137 cm2 plant-1, 7184 cm2 plant-1 and 26322 cm2 plant-1, respectively)”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced higher total dry matter.
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione1
- Outcome
- total dry mattere0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 2.06 g plant-1, 10.58 g plant-1 and 20.62 g plant-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total dry matter (2.06 g plant-1, 10.58 g plant-1 and 20.62 g plant-1, respectively)”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced higher RGR.
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione1
- Outcome
- RGRe0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.422 g day-1 dm2 and 0.284 g day-1 dm2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RGR (0.422 g day-1 dm2 and 0.284 g day-1 dm2 at 30-60 days and 60-90 days interval, respectively)”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced higher CGR.
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione1
- Outcome
- CGRe0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 7.230 g dm-2 day-1 and 5.841 g dm-2 day-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGR (7.230 g dm-2 day-1 and 5.841 g dm-2 day-1 at 30-60 days and 60-90 days interval, respectively)”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced higher NAR.
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione1
- Outcome
- NARe0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.0637 g day-1 dm2 and 0.0539 g day-1 dm2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NAR (0.0637 g day-1 dm2 and 0.0539 g day-1 dm2 at 30-60 days and 60-90 days interval, respectively)”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment produced seed yield of 4166 kg ha-1.
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF applicatione0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 4166 kg ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed yield (4166 kg ha-1) were recorded with spacing of 60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
t0“Finger Millet”
e2“significantly higher plant height”
e1“60 x 60 cm + 100 % RDF application”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
170 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 papers →fertilization · growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
39 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 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.