Abstract
Rice-wheat system, the most prevalent cropping system of the Indo-Gangetic plain, nowadays poses a threat to its sustainability owing to deterioration of soil physical parameters, disposal of rice straw and declining yield trends. The present study was aimed to identify the best option of crop establishment, tillage and rice straw retention in rice-wheat system after long-term (2010–2020). The field experiment was conducted on typic Ustochrept sandy clay loam soil. Treatments comprised direct seeded rice with zero tillage (DSRZT), direct seeded rice with conventional tillage (DSRCT), direct seeded rice with reduced tillage (DSRRT) and puddled transplanted rice (PTR) in rice as main plots; and conventionally tilled without rice residue (CTW), zero tilled without residue (ZTW) and zero tilled wheat with residue retention (ZTW+R) in wheat as sub plots. The results revealed that physical parameters like bulk density and soil penetration resistance decreased while, plant available water content, infiltration and hydraulic conductivity of the soil increased significantly in DSRZT, DSRRT and ZTW+R compared to PTR and CTW. Amount of organic carbon enhanced from .42% to .55% and .34% to .39% in both 0–15 and 15–30 cm soil layers, respectively, in DSRZT compared to PTR. Aggregation status also improved in ZT-based treatments in contrast to PTR and CTW treatments. However, the average grain yield of rice was higher by 2.15–19.4% in PTR compared to DSR treatments while; ZTW+R had an advantage of 4.98% and 7.75% in contrast to CTW and ZTW, respectively, in terms of average wheat yield.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Zero and reduced tillage treatments decreased soil bulk density and penetration resistance.
Verbatim
e0“bulk density and soil penetration resistance decreased while, plant available water content, infiltration and hydraulic conductivity of the soil increased significantly in DSRZT, DSRRT and ZTW+R compared to PTR and CTW”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero and reduced tillage treatments increased plant available water, infiltration and conductivity.
Verbatim
e0“plant available water content, infiltration and hydraulic conductivity of the soil increased significantly in DSRZT, DSRRT and ZTW+R compared to PTR and CTW”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
DSRZT increased organic carbon from .42% to .55% in the 0–15 cm layer.
- Taxon
- Rice-wheatt0
- Treatment
- DSRZTe0
- Outcome
- organic carbone0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- .42% to .55%e0
- Comparator
- PTRe0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Verbatim
e0“Amount of organic carbon enhanced from .42% to .55% and .34% to .39% in both 0–15 and 15–30 cm soil layers, respectively, in DSRZT compared to PTR”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
DSRZT increased organic carbon from .34% to .39% in the 15–30 cm layer.
Verbatim
e0“Amount of organic carbon enhanced from .42% to .55% and .34% to .39% in both 0–15 and 15–30 cm soil layers, respectively, in DSRZT compared to PTR”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage improved soil aggregation compared with PTR and CTW.
Verbatim
e0“Aggregation status also improved in ZT-based treatments in contrast to PTR and CTW treatments”
t0“Rice-Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
PTR rice grain yield exceeded direct seeding by 2.15–19.4%.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- PTRe0
- Outcome
- grain yield of ricee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.15–19.4%e0
- Comparator
- DSR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average grain yield of rice was higher by 2.15–19.4% in PTR compared to DSR treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
ZTW+R increased wheat yield 4.98% relative to CTW.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- ZTW+Re0
- Outcome
- average wheat yielde0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 4.98%e0
- Comparator
- CTWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZTW+R had an advantage of 4.98% and 7.75% in contrast to CTW and ZTW, respectively, in terms of average wheat yield”
Claim · model-written summary
ZTW+R increased wheat yield 7.75% relative to ZTW.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- ZTW+Re0
- Outcome
- average wheat yielde0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 7.75%e0
- Comparator
- ZTWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ZTW+R had an advantage of 4.98% and 7.75% in contrast to CTW and ZTW, respectively, in terms of average wheat yield”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
586 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 27 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
725 papers more in this group
See all 729 papers →transplanting · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
921 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
1,074 papers more in this group
See all 1,078 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 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.