Abstract
A three-year field experiment was conducted at the Agricultural Research Station of Mandor, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, under arid climatic conditions in the rabi season of 2016–2019 with the objectives of evaluating the effect of drip irrigation and fertigation levels on cumin plant growth, yield, oil content, water-use efficiency, and water productivity. The pooled data revealed that the drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher plant height (31.4 cm), umbels plant−1 (50.4), umbellates umbel−1 (5.07), seeds umbel−1 (5.34), test weight (4.60 g), seed yield (1063 kg ha−1), gross return (₹ 172,600 ha−1), net return (₹ 113,500 ha−1) and benefit, and cost ratio (2.9) over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE. The fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of umbels plant−1 (50.0), umbellates umbel−1 (5.03), seeds umbellate−1 (5.24), test weight (4.67 g), seed yield (1052 kg ha−1), gross return (₹ 170,900 ha−1), net return (₹ 111,700 ha−1), and benefit cost ratio (2.9) over fertigation with 60% RDF and control. Maximum water-use efficiency (5.7 kg ha−1 mm−1) and water saving (39.04%) was observed under drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE followed by 0.6 CPE (4.8 kg ha−1 mm−1 and 18.86%, respectively).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher plant height (31.4 cm) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- Cumin
Cuminum cyminumt0 - Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 31.4 cme1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“plant height (31.4 cm)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher umbels plant−1 (50.4) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- umbels plant−1e1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 50.4e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“umbels plant−1 (50.4)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher umbellates umbel−1 (5.07) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- umbellates umbel−1e1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.07e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“umbellates umbel−1 (5.07)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher seeds umbel−1 (5.34) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- seeds umbel−1e1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.34e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“seeds umbel−1 (5.34)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher test weight (4.60 g) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- test weighte1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4.60 ge1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“test weight (4.60 g)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher seed yield (1063 kg ha−1) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- seed yielde1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1063 kg ha−1e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“seed yield (1063 kg ha−1)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher gross return (₹ 172,600 ha−1) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- gross returne1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- ₹ 172,600 ha−1e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“gross return (₹ 172,600 ha−1)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher net return (₹ 113,500 ha−1) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- net returne1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- ₹ 113,500 ha−1e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“net return (₹ 113,500 ha−1)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE gave higher cost ratio (2.9) than the stated alternatives.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE)e0
- Outcome
- cost ratioe1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.9e1
- Comparator
- drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher”
e1“and cost ratio (2.9)”
e2“over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher umbels plant−1 (50.0) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- umbels plant−1e1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 50.0e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“umbels plant−1 (50.0)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher umbellates umbel−1 (5.03) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- umbellates umbel−1e1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.03e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“umbellates umbel−1 (5.03)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher seeds umbellate−1 (5.24) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- seeds umbellate−1e1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.24e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“seeds umbellate−1 (5.24)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher test weight (4.67 g) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- test weighte1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4.67 ge1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“test weight (4.67 g)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher seed yield (1052 kg ha−1) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- seed yielde1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1052 kg ha−1e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“seed yield (1052 kg ha−1)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher gross return (₹ 170,900 ha−1) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- gross returne1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- ₹ 170,900 ha−1e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“gross return (₹ 170,900 ha−1)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher net return (₹ 111,700 ha−1) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- net returne1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- ₹ 111,700 ha−1e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“net return (₹ 111,700 ha−1)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation with 80% RDF gave higher benefit cost ratio (2.9) than 60% RDF and control and was at par with 100% RDF.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)e0
- Outcome
- benefit cost ratioe1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.9e1
- Comparator
- fertigation with 60% RDF and controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“fertigation with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significantly higher number of”
e1“benefit cost ratio (2.9)”
e2“over fertigation with 60% RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE gave maximum water-use efficiency of 5.7 kg ha−1 mm−1.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.4 CPEe0
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye0
- Direction
- Maximume0
- Value
- 5.7 kg ha−1 mm−1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“Maximum water-use efficiency (5.7 kg ha−1 mm−1) and water saving (39.04%) was observed under drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE saved 39.04% water.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation at 0.4 CPEe0
- Outcome
- water savinge0
- Value
- 39.04%e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“water saving (39.04%) was observed under drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE had water-use efficiency of 4.8 kg ha−1 mm−1 and water saving of 18.86%.
- Taxon
- CuminCuminum cyminumt0
- Treatment
- 0.6 CPEe0
- Outcome
- 0.6 CPEe0
- Value
- 4.8 kg ha−1 mm−1 and 18.86%e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cumin”
e0“followed by 0.6 CPE (4.8 kg ha−1 mm−1 and 18.86%, respectively)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Cuminum cyminum (cumin)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →fertilization · yield · Cuminum cyminum (cumin)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →irrigation · growth · Cuminum cyminum (cumin)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
irrigation · quality: grain · Cuminum cyminum (cumin)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
fertilization · quality: grain · Cuminum cyminum (cumin)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.