Paper · 2019 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Conservation Agriculture Based Tillage Options for Rabi Crops Cultivation in Eastern India: Effects on Productivity and Profitability

Shweta Kumari; Sanjay Kumar; Asheesh Chaurasiya; et al.

13
claims
16
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In conventional tillage, the traditional practice of opening and turning the soil greatly contributes towards the quick oxidation of organic matter in the soil, quantitative loss of residual soil moisture and high labour and energy input thereby resulting in the poor economic returns for the farmers. However, in some situations tillage causes the soil degradation which results into development of compacted soil having low soil organic carbon (SOC) and restricted drainage. So, the experiment was conducted to specify the tillage practices which can keep protecting the soil healthy for longer period. This experiment was devised to evaluate the effect of long term CA practices like zero tillage and permanent beds on production, productivity and economics of the 5th year rabi season crops as compared to their performance against the business as usual practice i.e., conventional tillage practice for different Rabi season crops. The experiment had a split plot design, replicated thrice with three main plot treatments viz. zero tillage (ZT), conventional tillage (CT) and permanent bed (PB) and four sub plot treatment viz. wheat, rabi maize, mustard and chickpea. The results revealed that higher grain yield of wheat was recorded under PB (5488 kg ha-1) over ZT and CT while, higher grain yield of rabi maize (11279 kg ha-1), mustard (970 kg ha-1) and chickpea (1936 kg ha-1) was recorded in ZT over CT. The highest net return (Rs 64,779 ha-1), and B: C ratio (2.09) was recorded under ZT which was at par with PB (Rs 61,789 ha-1 and 2.02). Among rabi crops, highest net return was recorded in maize (Rs. 1,00,509 ha-1) followed by chickpea (Rs. 57,975 ha-1) while B:C ratio was highest for chickpea (2.70) followed by rabi maize (2.05), wheat (1.74) and mustard (0.77).The experiment shows that conservation agriculture-based Zero tillage and permanent bed tillage practices along with residue retention resulted in significant increase in biomass production and productivity of rabi crops with higher net returns and B:C ratio than conventional tillage practice.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Permanent beds gave the highest wheat grain yield.

Treatment
PBe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
5488 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
ZT and CTe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“higher grain yield of wheat was recorded under PB (5488 kg ha-1) over ZT and CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1199–1278 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage gave higher rabi maize grain yield than conventional tillage.

Taxon
rabi maizee0
Treatment
ZTe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
11279 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
CTe0

Verbatim

e0

“higher grain yield of rabi maize (11279 kg ha-1), mustard (970 kg ha-1) and chickpea (1936 kg ha-1) was recorded in ZT over CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1286–1412 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage gave higher mustard grain yield than conventional tillage.

Taxon
mustarde0
Treatment
ZTe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
970 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
CTe0

Verbatim

e0

“higher grain yield of rabi maize (11279 kg ha-1), mustard (970 kg ha-1) and chickpea (1936 kg ha-1) was recorded in ZT over CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1286–1412 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage gave higher chickpea grain yield than conventional tillage.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
ZTe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
1936 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
CTe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“higher grain yield of rabi maize (11279 kg ha-1), mustard (970 kg ha-1) and chickpea (1936 kg ha-1) was recorded in ZT over CT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1286–1412 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage produced the highest net return.

Taxon
Rabi Cropst0
Treatment
ZTe0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
higheste0
Value
Rs 64,779 ha-1e0
Comparator
PBe0

Verbatim

t0

“Rabi Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–61 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest net return (Rs 64,779 ha-1), and B: C ratio (2.09) was recorded under ZT which was at par with PB (Rs 61,789 ha-1 and 2.02).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1414–1550 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage produced the highest benefit-cost ratio.

Taxon
Rabi Cropst0
Treatment
ZTe0
Outcome
B: C ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.09e0
Comparator
PBe0

Verbatim

t0

“Rabi Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–61 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest net return (Rs 64,779 ha-1), and B: C ratio (2.09) was recorded under ZT which was at par with PB (Rs 61,789 ha-1 and 2.02).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1414–1550 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize had the highest net return among rabi crops.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
higheste0
Value
Rs. 1,00,509 ha-1e0
Comparator
chickpeae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“highest net return was recorded in maize (Rs. 1,00,509 ha-1) followed by chickpea (Rs. 57,975 ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1569–1668 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea had the second highest net return.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
followed bye0
Value
Rs. 57,975 ha-1e0
Comparator
maizee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“highest net return was recorded in maize (Rs. 1,00,509 ha-1) followed by chickpea (Rs. 57,975 ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1569–1668 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea had the highest benefit-cost ratio.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Outcome
B:C ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.70e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B:C ratio was highest for chickpea (2.70) followed by rabi maize (2.05), wheat (1.74) and mustard (0.77).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1675–1780 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rabi maize had a benefit-cost ratio of 2.05.

Taxon
rabi maizee0
Outcome
B:C ratioe0
Value
2.05e0

Verbatim

e0

“B:C ratio was highest for chickpea (2.70) followed by rabi maize (2.05), wheat (1.74) and mustard (0.77).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1675–1780 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.74.

Outcome
B:C ratioe0
Value
1.74e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B:C ratio was highest for chickpea (2.70) followed by rabi maize (2.05), wheat (1.74) and mustard (0.77).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1675–1780 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mustard had a benefit-cost ratio of 0.77.

Taxon
mustarde0
Outcome
B:C ratioe0
Value
0.77e0

Verbatim

e0

“B:C ratio was highest for chickpea (2.70) followed by rabi maize (2.05), wheat (1.74) and mustard (0.77).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1675–1780 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage and permanent beds with residue retention significantly increased biomass and productivity relative to conventional tillage.

Taxon
rabi cropse0
Treatment
Zero tillage and permanent bed tillage practices along with residue retentione0
Outcome
biomass production and productivitye0
Direction
increasee0
Comparator
conventional tillage practicee0

Verbatim

t0

“Rabi Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–61 · show in text ↑
e0

“Zero tillage and permanent bed tillage practices along with residue retention resulted in significant increase in biomass production and productivity of rabi crops with higher net returns and B:C ratio than conventional tillage practice.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1837–2074 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

97 papers: 79 positive, 18 negative or no effect

78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

93 papers more in this group

See all 97 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. 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.