Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of mulching, liming and farm yard manures on productivity and quality of maize on a sandy loam soil at Agricultural Research Farm of ICAR RC NEH Region Nagaland Centre, Jharnapani, Medziphema during two consecutive rabi seasons of 2010-12 under the rainfed conditions of Eastern Himalaya. Treatment comprised of two mulches (without mulch and straw mulch) in main plot, four levels of lime (control, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 t/ha) in sub plot and three levels of farm yard manures (4, 8 and 12 t/ha) in sub-sub plot and replicated thrice in split-split plot design. The significant improvement in yield attributes (cob length, number of rows/cob, number of grain/row, number of grain/cob and 1000-grain weight), yields (grain, stover and biological), economics (gross, net returns and benefit: cost ratio) and quality attributes (carbohydrate, starch and sugar) of maize were recorded in straw mulched plot over no mulch in both the years. The straw mulching recorded 15.9 and 16.5% increase in grain yield and 20.4 and 22.2% in stover yield over no mulch. Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively. Application of farm yard manures @ 12 t/ha noted significantly higher yield attributes yield and quality attributes of maize over rest of the treatments. Similar effect of these treatments was observed on gross return of Rs. 40.75 and 41.78 × 103/ ha, net return of Rs. 27.5 and Rs. 28.53 × 103/ha and benefit : cost ratio of 1.52 and 1.57 in both the years, 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch significantly improved maize yield attributes, yield, returns and quality over no mulch.
- Treatment
- straw mulched plote0
- Outcome
- yield attributese0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Qualifier
- both the yearse0
- Comparator
- no mulche0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The significant improvement in yield attributes (cob length, number of rows/cob, number of grain/row, number of grain/cob and 1000-grain weight), yields (grain, stover and biological), economics (gross, net returns and benefit: cost ratio) and quality attributes (carbohydrate, starch and sugar) of maize were recorded in straw mulched plot over no mulch in both the years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch increased maize grain yield by 15.9 and 16.5% over no mulch.
- Treatment
- straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 15.9 and 16.5%e0
- Comparator
- no mulche0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The straw mulching recorded 15.9 and 16.5% increase in grain yield and 20.4 and 22.2% in stover yield over no mulch.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch increased maize stover yield by 20.4 and 22.2% over no mulch.
- Treatment
- straw mulchinge0
- Outcome
- stover yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 20.4 and 22.2%e0
- Comparator
- no mulche0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The straw mulching recorded 15.9 and 16.5% increase in grain yield and 20.4 and 22.2% in stover yield over no mulch.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch improved maize quality attributes over no mulch.
- Treatment
- straw mulched plote0
- Outcome
- carbohydrate, starch and sugare0
- Direction
- improvemente1
- Comparator
- no mulche0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“quality attributes (carbohydrate, starch and sugar) of maize were recorded in straw mulched plot over no mulch in both the years.”
e1“The significant improvement in yield attributes”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha gave higher maize yield attributes than the other lime rates.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- yield attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha gave maize grain yield of 3.85 and 3.97 t/ha, higher than other levels.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3.85 and 3.97 t/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha gave maize stover yield of 4.16 and 4.33 t/ha, higher than other levels.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- stover yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4.16 and 4.33 t/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha gave gross returns of 41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- gross returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 41.87 and 43.25 ×103/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha gave net returns of 28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 28.45 and 29.83 ×103/hae0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha gave benefit:cost ratios of 1.55 and 1.63.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- benefit: cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.55 and 1.63e0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime at 0.6 t/ha improved maize quality attributes over other lime levels.
- Treatment
- 0.6 t lime/ha in furrowe0
- Outcome
- quality attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- rest of the levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 0.6 t lime/ha in furrow recorded the significantly higher yield attributes, grain yield (3.85 and 3.97 t/ha), stover yield (4.16 and 4.33 t/ha), gross return (41.87 and 43.25 ×103/ha), net return (28.45 and 29.83 ×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.55 and 1.63) and quality attributes over rest of the levels, respectively.”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure at 12 t/ha significantly increased maize yield and quality attributes over other treatments.
- Treatment
- farm yard manures @ 12 t/hae0
- Outcome
- yield attributes yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- rest of the treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of farm yard manures @ 12 t/ha noted significantly higher yield attributes yield and quality attributes of maize over rest of the treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure at 12 t/ha significantly improved maize quality attributes over other treatments.
- Treatment
- farm yard manures @ 12 t/hae0
- Outcome
- quality attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- rest of the treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of farm yard manures @ 12 t/ha noted significantly higher yield attributes yield and quality attributes of maize over rest of the treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure at 12 t/ha gave gross returns of Rs. 40.75 and 41.78 × 103/ ha.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar effect of these treatments was observed on gross return of Rs. 40.75 and 41.78 × 103/ ha, net return of Rs. 27.5 and Rs. 28.53 × 103/ha and benefit : cost ratio of 1.52 and 1.57 in both the years, respectively.”
e1“Application of farm yard manures @ 12 t/ha”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure at 12 t/ha gave net returns of Rs. 27.5 and Rs. 28.53 × 103/ha.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar effect of these treatments was observed on gross return of Rs. 40.75 and 41.78 × 103/ ha, net return of Rs. 27.5 and Rs. 28.53 × 103/ha and benefit : cost ratio of 1.52 and 1.57 in both the years, respectively.”
e1“Application of farm yard manures @ 12 t/ha”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure at 12 t/ha gave benefit:cost ratios of 1.52 and 1.57.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar effect of these treatments was observed on gross return of Rs. 40.75 and 41.78 × 103/ ha, net return of Rs. 27.5 and Rs. 28.53 × 103/ha and benefit : cost ratio of 1.52 and 1.57 in both the years, respectively.”
e1“Application of farm yard manures @ 12 t/ha”
t0“maize (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
lime · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →fertilization · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
215 papers more in this group
See all 219 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 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 →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 papers →organic · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)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.