Abstract
Abstract Resource conserving and eco-friendly interventions through improved crop establishment are the need of time to produce more with less resources, and mitigating climatic vulnerabilities and protecting environmental quality in the rice–wheat cropping system (RWCS) of India. In this context, seven years (2010–2017) field experimentation at Karnal, Haryana, India revealed that the weed infestation was more intensified and diversified in direct seeded rice (DSR) than puddled transplanted rice (PTR), and even eliminating puddling in rice-induced more infestation of Phalaris minor in succeeding wheat crop. Residue retention in zero-till (ZT) DSR and rotating conventional till (CT) DSR with PTR reduced weed pressure compared to continuous DSR. Root knot and plant parasitic nematodes were less in DSR than PTR but reverse was true for saprozoic nematodes in DSR and ZT situations. CTDSR, ZTDSR (with or without residues), and ZT/CT machine-transplanted rice (MTR) produced grain yields at par ( P = 0.05) with PTR. The grain yield of ZT wheat (5.03–6.90 t ha −1 ) in sequence with CT/ZT rice establishment (DSR/MTR) was 0.3–0.6 t ha −1 higher than what it was attained after puddled rice systems. Net returns from DSR/MTR-based cropping systems were higher than PTR, with 22–31% saving of labor. Irrigation water productivity was also higher under DSR (27.5–29.9 kg ha-cm −1 ) than PTR (23.7 kg ha-cm −1 ), with 17.5–22.8% reduction in irrigation input. There was also improvement in soil health under ZTDSR/MTR (higher OC, N, P and K, and lower bulk density) compared to PTR. Overall, the resource conservation and soil health improvement through these planting methods signaled toward system stability over trade-offs in RWCS.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Weed infestation was greater and more diverse in direct seeded rice than transplanted rice.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Outcome
- weed infestatione0
- Direction
- more intensified and diversifiede0
- Comparator
- puddled transplanted rice (PTR)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed infestation was more intensified and diversified in direct seeded rice (DSR) than puddled transplanted rice (PTR)”
Claim · model-written summary
Eliminating puddling in rice increased Phalaris minor infestation in succeeding wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- eliminating puddling in ricee0
- Interactor
- Phalaris minor
.jpg?width=60)
Phalaris minore0weed - Outcome
- infestation of Phalaris minore0
- Direction
- moree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“eliminating puddling in rice-induced more infestation of Phalaris minor in succeeding wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention in zero-till DSR reduced weed pressure versus continuous DSR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Residue retention in zero-till (ZT) DSRe0
- Outcome
- weed pressuree0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- continuous DSRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention in zero-till (ZT) DSR and rotating conventional till (CT) DSR with PTR reduced weed pressure compared to continuous DSR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotating CT DSR with PTR reduced weed pressure versus continuous DSR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- rotating conventional till (CT) DSR with PTRe0
- Outcome
- weed pressuree0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- continuous DSRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residue retention in zero-till (ZT) DSR and rotating conventional till (CT) DSR with PTR reduced weed pressure compared to continuous DSR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Root knot and plant parasitic nematodes were fewer in DSR than PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Interactor
- plant parasitic nematodese0pathogen
- Outcome
- Root knot and plant parasitic nematodese0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root knot and plant parasitic nematodes were less in DSR than PTR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Saprozoic nematodes showed the reverse pattern in DSR and ZT situations.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Interactor
- saprozoic nematodese0other
- Outcome
- saprozoic nematodese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reverse was true for saprozoic nematodes in DSR and ZT situations”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
CTDSR grain yield was at par with PTR.
Not reportedMaterial
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTDSR, ZTDSR (with or without residues), and ZT/CT machine-transplanted rice (MTR) produced grain yields at par ( P = 0.05) with PTR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
ZTDSR grain yield was at par with PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- ZTDSR (with or without residues)e0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- at pare0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTDSR, ZTDSR (with or without residues), and ZT/CT machine-transplanted rice (MTR) produced grain yields at par ( P = 0.05) with PTR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Machine-transplanted rice grain yield was at par with PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- ZT/CT machine-transplanted rice (MTR)e0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- at pare0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTDSR, ZTDSR (with or without residues), and ZT/CT machine-transplanted rice (MTR) produced grain yields at par ( P = 0.05) with PTR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-till wheat after CT/ZT rice yielded 0.3–0.6 t ha −1 more than after puddled rice.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- CT/ZT rice establishment (DSR/MTR)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.3–0.6 t ha −1e0
- Comparator
- puddled rice systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yield of ZT wheat (5.03–6.90 t ha −1 ) in sequence with CT/ZT rice establishment (DSR/MTR) was 0.3–0.6 t ha −1 higher than what it was attained after puddled rice systems”
Claim · model-written summary
DSR/MTR systems had higher net returns than PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- Net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Net returns from DSR/MTR-based cropping systems were higher than PTR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
DSR/MTR systems saved 22–31% labor.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- labore0
- Direction
- savinge0
- Value
- 22–31%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with 22–31% saving of labor”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
DSR irrigation water productivity exceeded PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- Irrigation water productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 27.5–29.9 kg ha-cm −1e0
- Qualifier
- 23.7 kg ha-cm −1e0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation water productivity was also higher under DSR (27.5–29.9 kg ha-cm −1 ) than PTR (23.7 kg ha-cm −1 )”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
DSR reduced irrigation input by 17.5–22.8%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- irrigation inpute0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 17.5–22.8%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with 17.5–22.8% reduction in irrigation input”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
ZTDSR/MTR increased soil OC, N, P and K relative to PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- OC, N, P and Ke0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher OC, N, P and K, and lower bulk density) compared to PTR”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
ZTDSR/MTR lowered soil bulk density relative to PTR.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Outcome
- bulk densitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher OC, N, P and K, and lower bulk density) compared to PTR”
t0“rice”
The same questions in other papers
Oryza sativa · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →tillage · weed · Oryza sativa (rice)Results differ
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
82 papers more in this group
See all 86 papers →organic · weed · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →tillage · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →transplanting · weed · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
142 papers more in this group
See all 146 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.