Abstract
The Centre of Excellence in Millets, located in Athiyandal, Tamil Nadu, conducted an extensive study from kharif 2020 to 2022, focusing on the impact of conservation agriculture practices on small millet crops in rainfed areas. The experiment, designed in a split-plot layout, included three main plot treatments: No tillage, Minimal tillage, and Mulching, with six sub-plot treatments comprising various millet varieties. Results indicated that a single ploughing significantly reduced weed populations, while mulching played a crucial role in curbing weed growth and conserving water. This led to substantial increases in grain yield and straw yield, ranging from 24.3% to 36.1% over the control, alongside an improvement in relative water use efficiency (RWUE) from 5.16 to 7.03 kg/ha/mm. Among the various millets cultivated with the mulching treatment (S3) emerged as the most favorable option in terms of grain yield. Finger millet, Kodomillet, and Foxtail millet exhibited the highest yields under this treatment, with 3010 kg/ha, 2234 kg/ha, and 2003 kg/ha, respectively. Additionally, Little millet, Barnyard millet, and Proso millet also demonstrated improved yields under Mulching, recording 1015 kg/ha, 1004 kg/ha, and 910 kg/ha, respectively. These results conclude that small millet cultivation in rainfed areas with mulching practices effectively enhances grain production, reduces weed growth, and ensures optimal water conservation, thereby providing sustainable alternatives to herbicide usage.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
A single ploughing significantly reduced weed populations in small millet.
- Taxon
- small millete0
- Treatment
- a single ploughinge1
- Interactor
- weede1weed
- Outcome
- weed populationse1
- Direction
- significantly reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“focusing on the impact of conservation agriculture practices on small millet crops in rainfed areas”
e1“Results indicated that a single ploughing significantly reduced weed populations, while mulching played a crucial role in curbing weed growth and conserving water”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching curbed weed growth in small millet.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“focusing on the impact of conservation agriculture practices on small millet crops in rainfed areas”
e1“Results indicated that a single ploughing significantly reduced weed populations, while mulching played a crucial role in curbing weed growth and conserving water”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching conserved water in small millet.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“focusing on the impact of conservation agriculture practices on small millet crops in rainfed areas”
e1“Results indicated that a single ploughing significantly reduced weed populations, while mulching played a crucial role in curbing weed growth and conserving water”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture increased grain and straw yields of small millet by 24.3% to 36.1% over the control.
Verbatim
e0“focusing on the impact of conservation agriculture practices on small millet crops in rainfed areas”
e2“This led to substantial increases in grain yield and straw yield, ranging from 24.3% to 36.1% over the control, alongside an improvement in relative water use efficiency (RWUE) from 5.16 to 7.03 kg/ha/mm”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture improved relative water use efficiency of small millet from 5.16 to 7.03 kg/ha/mm.
- Taxon
- small millete0
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee0
- Outcome
- relative water use efficiency (RWUE)e2
- Direction
- improvemente2
- Value
- 5.16 to 7.03 kg/ha/mme2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“focusing on the impact of conservation agriculture practices on small millet crops in rainfed areas”
e2“This led to substantial increases in grain yield and straw yield, ranging from 24.3% to 36.1% over the control, alongside an improvement in relative water use efficiency (RWUE) from 5.16 to 7.03 kg/ha/mm”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulching gave the most favorable grain yield among the millets tested.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e3“Among the various millets cultivated with the mulching treatment (S3) emerged as the most favorable option in terms of grain yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Finger millet gave the highest yield under mulching, at 3010 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- Finger millet
Eleusine coracanae4 - Treatment
- mulching treatment (S3)e3
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- highest yieldse4
- Value
- 3010 kg/hae4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the various millets cultivated with the mulching treatment (S3) emerged as the most favorable option in terms of grain yield”
e4“Finger millet, Kodomillet, and Foxtail millet exhibited the highest yields under this treatment, with 3010 kg/ha, 2234 kg/ha, and 2003 kg/ha, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Kodomillet gave the highest yield under mulching, at 2234 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- Kodomillet
Paspalum scrobiculatume4 - Treatment
- mulching treatment (S3)e3
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- highest yieldse4
- Value
- 2234 kg/hae4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the various millets cultivated with the mulching treatment (S3) emerged as the most favorable option in terms of grain yield”
e4“Finger millet, Kodomillet, and Foxtail millet exhibited the highest yields under this treatment, with 3010 kg/ha, 2234 kg/ha, and 2003 kg/ha, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Foxtail millet gave the highest yield under mulching, at 2003 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- Foxtail millet
Setaria italicae4 - Treatment
- mulching treatment (S3)e3
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- highest yieldse4
- Value
- 2003 kg/hae4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Among the various millets cultivated with the mulching treatment (S3) emerged as the most favorable option in terms of grain yield”
e4“Finger millet, Kodomillet, and Foxtail millet exhibited the highest yields under this treatment, with 3010 kg/ha, 2234 kg/ha, and 2003 kg/ha, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Little millet improved yield under mulching, to 1015 kg/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e5“Little millet, Barnyard millet, and Proso millet also demonstrated improved yields under Mulching, recording 1015 kg/ha, 1004 kg/ha, and 910 kg/ha, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Barnyard millet improved yield under mulching, to 1004 kg/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e5“Little millet, Barnyard millet, and Proso millet also demonstrated improved yields under Mulching, recording 1015 kg/ha, 1004 kg/ha, and 910 kg/ha, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Proso millet improved yield under mulching, to 910 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- Proso millet
Panicum miliaceume5 - Treatment
- Mulchinge5
- Outcome
- yieldse5
- Direction
- improved yieldse5
- Value
- 910 kg/hae5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Little millet, Barnyard millet, and Proso millet also demonstrated improved yields under Mulching, recording 1015 kg/ha, 1004 kg/ha, and 910 kg/ha, respectively”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Paspalum scrobiculatumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
mulching · yield · Setaria italica (foxtail millet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
mulching · yield · Panicum miliaceum (proso millet)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
mulching · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.