Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of tillage and intercropping on yield, net returns and weed density in maize (Zea mays L.) at ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi during 2010, 2011 and 2012. The experiment was conducted in split-plot design with three replications. In main plots, tillage systems, viz. conventional tillage (CT), CT + residues at 3 t/ha, zero-tillage (ZT) and ZT+ residues at 3 t/ha were taken. In sub plots, intercropping systems such as sole maize, sole groundnut, maize + groundnut (1:1) and maize + groundnut (1:2) were taken. The results indicated that ZT + residue at 3 t/ha recorded the highest dry matter (DM) accumulation in maize at all the growth stages except 30 DAS followed by CT + residue at 3 t/ha over the years. The yield attributes such as number of gain rows/cob and number of grains/grain row were recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha followed by CT + residue at 3 t/ha. The residue retention at 3 t/ha in ZT enhanced 25.3-28.9% grain yield in maize compared to CT over the years. ZT + residue at 3 t/ha recorded the highest net returns (49.8 × 103 /ha) and B:C ratios (1.7) in maize. In 2010, weed population of broad-leaved weed (BLWs), narrow-leaved weed (NLWs) and total was recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha. However, the population of BLWs and total increased in CT compared to ZT at the end of the study period. The intercropped system, viz. maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest DM accumulation than the sole maize over the years. The number of grain rows/cob and number of grains/ grain row were recorded highest in sole maize compared to intercropped maize. However, higher grain yield and net returns was found in maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 than sole maize. The intercropped maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest population of BLWs, NLWs and total during the years.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with residue produced the highest maize dry matter at all growth stages except 30 DAS.
- Treatment
- ZT + residue at 3 t/hae0
- Outcome
- dry matter (DM) accumulatione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- all the growth stages except 30 DASe0
- Comparator
- CT + residue at 3 t/hae0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZT + residue at 3 t/ha recorded the highest dry matter (DM) accumulation in maize at all the growth stages except 30 DAS followed by CT + residue at 3 t/ha over the years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with residue gave the most grain rows per cob.
- Treatment
- ZT + residue at 3 t/hae0
- Outcome
- number of gain rows/cobe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- CT + residue at 3 t/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield attributes such as number of gain rows/cob and number of grains/grain row were recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha followed by CT + residue at 3 t/ha.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with residue gave the most grains per grain row.
- Treatment
- ZT + residue at 3 t/hae0
- Outcome
- number of grains/grain rowe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- CT + residue at 3 t/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield attributes such as number of gain rows/cob and number of grains/grain row were recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha followed by CT + residue at 3 t/ha.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue retention under zero tillage increased maize grain yield 25.3-28.9% over conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- residue retention at 3 t/ha in ZTe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 25.3-28.9%e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The residue retention at 3 t/ha in ZT enhanced 25.3-28.9% grain yield in maize compared to CT over the years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with residue yielded the highest net returns of 49.8 × 103 /ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZT + residue at 3 t/ha recorded the highest net returns (49.8 × 103 /ha) and B:C ratios (1.7) in maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage with residue yielded the highest benefit-cost ratio of 1.7.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZT + residue at 3 t/ha recorded the highest net returns (49.8 × 103 /ha) and B:C ratios (1.7) in maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010, zero tillage with residue had the highest broad-leaved weed population.
- Treatment
- ZT + residue at 3 t/hae0
- Interactor
- broad-leaved weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed population of broad-leaved weed (BLWs)e0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- In 2010e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010, weed population of broad-leaved weed (BLWs), narrow-leaved weed (NLWs) and total was recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010, zero tillage with residue had the highest narrow-leaved weed population.
- Treatment
- ZT + residue at 3 t/hae0
- Interactor
- narrow-leaved weede0weed
- Outcome
- narrow-leaved weed (NLWs)e0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010, weed population of broad-leaved weed (BLWs), narrow-leaved weed (NLWs) and total was recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010, zero tillage with residue had the highest total weed population.
- Treatment
- ZT + residue at 3 t/hae0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed populatione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- totale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010, weed population of broad-leaved weed (BLWs), narrow-leaved weed (NLWs) and total was recorded highest in ZT + residue at 3 t/ha.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
By study end, broad-leaved weeds increased under conventional versus zero tillage.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Interactor
- broad-leaved weede1weed
- Outcome
- population of BLWse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- ZTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the population of BLWs and total increased in CT compared to ZT at the end of the study period.”
e1“broad-leaved weed (BLWs)”
e2“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
By study end, total weeds increased under conventional versus zero tillage.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Interactor
- weede2weed
- Outcome
- population of BLWs and totale0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- ZTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the population of BLWs and total increased in CT compared to ZT at the end of the study period.”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
e2“weed population”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:1 had lower maize dry matter than sole maize.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1e0
- Interactor
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeae0other - Outcome
- DM accumulatione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- sole maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The intercropped system, viz. maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest DM accumulation than the sole maize over the years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:2 had lower maize dry matter than sole maize.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2e0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- DM accumulatione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- sole maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The intercropped system, viz. maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest DM accumulation than the sole maize over the years.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole maize had more grain rows per cob than intercropped maize.
- Treatment
- sole maizee0
- Outcome
- number of grain rows/cobe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- intercropped maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of grain rows/cob and number of grains/ grain row were recorded highest in sole maize compared to intercropped maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole maize had more grains per grain row than intercropped maize.
- Treatment
- sole maizee0
- Outcome
- number of grains/ grain rowe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- intercropped maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of grain rows/cob and number of grains/ grain row were recorded highest in sole maize compared to intercropped maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:1 and 1:2 produced higher maize grain yield than sole maize.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2e0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher grain yield and net returns was found in maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 than sole maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:1 and 1:2 produced higher net returns than sole maize.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2e0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher grain yield and net returns was found in maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 than sole maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:1 and 1:2 had the lowest broad-leaved weed populations.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2e0
- Interactor
- broad-leaved weede1weed
- Outcome
- population of BLWse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The intercropped maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest population of BLWs, NLWs and total during the years.”
e1“broad-leaved weed (BLWs)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:1 and 1:2 had the lowest narrow-leaved weed populations.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2e0
- Interactor
- narrow-leaved weede1weed
- Outcome
- population of BLWs, NLWse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The intercropped maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest population of BLWs, NLWs and total during the years.”
e1“narrow-leaved weed (NLWs)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping at 1:1 and 1:2 had the lowest total weed populations.
- Treatment
- maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2e0
- Interactor
- weede1weed
- Outcome
- population of BLWs, NLWs and totale0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The intercropped maize + groundnut in 1:1 and 1:2 recorded the lowest population of BLWs, NLWs and total during the years.”
e1“weed population”
The same questions in other papers
Arachis hypogaea · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
Arachis hypogaea · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →Arachis hypogaea · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
54 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
56 papers more in this group
See all 60 papers →tillage · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →tillage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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
- no effect
- negative
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- 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.