Abstract
Water scarcity coupled with reduced nutrient-use efficiency (NUE) is challenging the sustainability of wheat production in the North-Western Plains of India. Suitable soil tillage practices, water, and nutrient management are thus essential to harvest high wheat yields on a long-term basis. Thus, a fixed-plot experiment was set and continued for three years to assess the main and interaction effects of tillage, irrigation, and fertilizers on water-use efficiency (WUE) and wheat yield. Zero-till flat bed (ZTFB) and conventional till-raised bed (CTRB) condensed the irrigation water requirement by 1163–1218 m3 ha−1 and 698–762 m3 ha−1, respectively, compared to conventional till-flat bed (CTFB) without affecting wheat yields during 2016–2019. Apart from the saving in irrigation water, CTRB enhanced grain turn over by 8.12–31.5%, biomass by 3.47–34.1%, WUE by 27.0–30.9% and irrigation water productivity (IWP) by 55.2–57.5% over CTFB. Likewise, CTRB recorded a 4.4–10.1% greater photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) interception over CTFB and ZTFB during the study years. ZTFB had the highest moisture level (11.2%–22.5%) for 0–0.3 m soil layer. Applying irrigation at 25% depletion of available soil moisture (DASM) and 100% recommended rates of nutrients (RRN) resulted in significantly greater grain and biomass yields and WUE over the lower levels of irrigation and nutrients during 2016–2019. Further, the treatment combination of CTRB or ZTFB + 25% DASM +100% RRN was more productive, registering significant enhancements in grain and biomass yields, and WUE compared to CTFB with all other fertilizer and irrigation levels. The study concludes that 25% DASM with 100% RRN application under CTRB and ZTFB in wheat are synergic to attain higher crop and water productivity against individual application of these agronomic variables.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-till flat bed reduced irrigation water requirement by 1163–1218 m3 ha−1 versus conventional till-flat bed.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- Zero-till flat bed (ZTFB)e0
- Outcome
- irrigation water requiremente0
- Direction
- condensede0
- Value
- 1163–1218 m3 ha−1e0
- Comparator
- conventional till-flat bed (CTFB)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zero-till flat bed (ZTFB) and conventional till-raised bed (CTRB) condensed the irrigation water requirement by 1163–1218 m3 ha−1 and 698–762 m3 ha−1, respectively, compared to conventional till-flat bed (CTFB) without affecting wheat yields during 2016–2019.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional till-raised bed reduced irrigation water requirement by 698–762 m3 ha−1 versus conventional till-flat bed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- conventional till-raised bed (CTRB)e0
- Outcome
- irrigation water requiremente0
- Direction
- condensede0
- Value
- 698–762 m3 ha−1e0
- Comparator
- conventional till-flat bed (CTFB)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Zero-till flat bed (ZTFB) and conventional till-raised bed (CTRB) condensed the irrigation water requirement by 1163–1218 m3 ha−1 and 698–762 m3 ha−1, respectively, compared to conventional till-flat bed (CTFB) without affecting wheat yields during 2016–2019.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced irrigation under the two bed systems did not affect wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- wheat yieldse0
- Outcome
- wheat yieldse0
- Direction
- without affectinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without affecting wheat yields during 2016–2019”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds enhanced grain turnover by 8.12–31.5% over conventional flat beds.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTRBe0
- Outcome
- grain turn overe0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 8.12–31.5%e0
- Comparator
- CTFBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTRB enhanced grain turn over by 8.12–31.5%, biomass by 3.47–34.1%, WUE by 27.0–30.9% and irrigation water productivity (IWP) by 55.2–57.5% over CTFB.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds enhanced biomass by 3.47–34.1% over flat beds.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTRBe0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 3.47–34.1%e0
- Comparator
- CTFBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTRB enhanced grain turn over by 8.12–31.5%, biomass by 3.47–34.1%, WUE by 27.0–30.9% and irrigation water productivity (IWP) by 55.2–57.5% over CTFB.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds enhanced WUE by 27.0–30.9% over flat beds.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTRBe0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 27.0–30.9%e0
- Comparator
- CTFBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTRB enhanced grain turn over by 8.12–31.5%, biomass by 3.47–34.1%, WUE by 27.0–30.9% and irrigation water productivity (IWP) by 55.2–57.5% over CTFB.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds enhanced irrigation water productivity by 55.2–57.5% over flat beds.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTRBe0
- Outcome
- irrigation water productivity (IWP)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 55.2–57.5%e0
- Comparator
- CTFBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTRB enhanced grain turn over by 8.12–31.5%, biomass by 3.47–34.1%, WUE by 27.0–30.9% and irrigation water productivity (IWP) by 55.2–57.5% over CTFB.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds recorded 4.4–10.1% greater PAR interception than flat and zero-till beds.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTRBe0
- Outcome
- photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) interceptione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4.4–10.1%e0
- Comparator
- CTFB and ZTFBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTRB recorded a 4.4–10.1% greater photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) interception over CTFB and ZTFB”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-till flat beds had the highest moisture level in the 0–0.3 m soil layer.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- moisture levele0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 11.2%–22.5%e0
- Qualifier
- 0–0.3 m soil layere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZTFB had the highest moisture level (11.2%–22.5%) for 0–0.3 m soil layer.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at 25% DASM with full recommended nutrients increased grain and biomass yields and WUE versus lower levels.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- irrigation at 25% depletion of available soil moisture (DASM) and 100% recommended rates of nutrients (RRN)e0
- Outcome
- grain and biomass yields and WUEe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- lower levels of irrigation and nutrientse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying irrigation at 25% depletion of available soil moisture (DASM) and 100% recommended rates of nutrients (RRN) resulted in significantly greater grain and biomass yields and WUE over the lower levels of irrigation and nutrients during 2016–2019.”
t0“wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised or zero-till beds combined with 25% DASM and 100% RRN significantly enhanced grain and biomass yields and WUE compared with flat beds at other input levels.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- CTRB or ZTFB + 25% DASM +100% RRNe0
- Outcome
- grain and biomass yields, and WUEe0
- Direction
- enhancementse0
- Comparator
- CTFB with all other fertilizer and irrigation levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CTRB or ZTFB + 25% DASM +100% RRN was more productive, registering significant enhancements in grain and biomass yields, and WUE compared to CTFB with all other fertilizer and irrigation levels.”
t0“wheat”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →soil water · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →tillage · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →tillage · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 54 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
263 papers more in this group
See all 267 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
299 papers more in this group
See all 303 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.