Paper · 2024 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Impact of row ratios and nutrient management practices on yield, economics and nutrient uptake of mustard + chickpea intercropping system

SASMITA TRIPATHY; S.L. MEENA; SHIVA DHAR; et al.

10
claims
10
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was undertaken in split plot design at ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute farm, New Delhi during the rabi seasons of 2021-22 and 2022-23 determine the impact of different row ratios and nutrient management practices on yield, nutrient uptake and economics of mustard + chickpea intercropping system. Sixteen treatment combinations were taken with four different row ratios as main plots and four nutrient management practices as sub-plots replicated thrice. Though crop yields for individual crops of mustard and chickpea were found to be the highest for sole crop, but yield of intercropping system in terms of mustard equivalent yield was found to be the highest for mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio (2.98 t/ha in 2021 and 3.06 t/ha in 2022). Yields of both mustard and chickpea were observed to be the highest in the plots treated with combination of organic manures and microbial consortia i.e., 20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortia (1.38 t/ha for mustard and 1.60 t/ha for chickpea). Highest gross returns (`84,560), net returns (`54,040) and benefit-cost ratio (1.77) were found in mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio. Analysis of nutrient uptake revealed maximum nutrient uptake in mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping system which led to better vegetative growth and higher yields. The above research aptly highlighted the beneficial effects of intercropping mustard with chickpea in dryland areas which helped to generate higher income for the farmers along with maintenance of soil sustainability by application of organic manures in right proportions.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Individual crop yields of mustard and chickpea were highest in sole crop, while intercropping system yield was highest at the mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio

Taxon
mustarde1
Treatment
sole crope1
Outcome
crop yields for individual cropse1
Direction
higheste1
Comparator
intercropping systeme1

Verbatim

e1

“Though crop yields for individual crops of mustard and chickpea were found to be the highest for sole crop, but yield of intercropping system in terms of mustard equivalent yield was found to be the highest for mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio (2.98 t/ha in 2021 and 3.06 t/ha in 2022)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 487–772 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mustard equivalent yield of the intercropping system was highest at the mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio, at 2.98 t/ha in 2021 and 3.06 t/ha in 2022

Taxon
mustarde1
Treatment
mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratioe1
Interactor
chickpeaCicer arietinume1other
Outcome
mustard equivalent yielde1
Direction
higheste1
Value
2.98 t/ha in 2021 and 3.06 t/ha in 2022e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · InteractorSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Though crop yields for individual crops of mustard and chickpea were found to be the highest for sole crop, but yield of intercropping system in terms of mustard equivalent yield was found to be the highest for mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio (2.98 t/ha in 2021 and 3.06 t/ha in 2022)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 487–772 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield of mustard was highest in plots with combined organic manures and microbial consortia, at 1.38 t/ha

Taxon
mustarde2
Treatment
20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortiae2
Outcome
Yields of both mustard and chickpeae2
Direction
higheste2
Value
1.38 t/hae2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e2

“Yields of both mustard and chickpea were observed to be the highest in the plots treated with combination of organic manures and microbial consortia i.e., 20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortia (1.38 t/ha for mustard and 1.60 t/ha for chickpea)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–1062 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield of chickpea was highest in plots with combined organic manures and microbial consortia, at 1.60 t/ha

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume2
Treatment
20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortiae2
Outcome
Yields of both mustard and chickpeae2
Direction
higheste2
Value
1.60 t/hae2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“Yields of both mustard and chickpea were observed to be the highest in the plots treated with combination of organic manures and microbial consortia i.e., 20 kg nitrogen through farmyard manure + leaf manure @ 4t/ha + microbial consortia (1.38 t/ha for mustard and 1.60 t/ha for chickpea)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–1062 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross returns were highest in the mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio

Taxon
mustarde3
Treatment
mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratioe3
Outcome
gross returnse3
Direction
Higheste3
Value
`84,560e3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e3

“Highest gross returns (`84,560), net returns (`54,040) and benefit-cost ratio (1.77) were found in mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1195 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net returns were highest in the mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio

Taxon
mustarde3
Treatment
mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratioe3
Outcome
net returnse3
Direction
Higheste3
Value
`54,040e3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e3

“Highest gross returns (`84,560), net returns (`54,040) and benefit-cost ratio (1.77) were found in mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1195 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Benefit-cost ratio was highest in the mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio, at 1.77

Taxon
mustarde3
Treatment
mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratioe3
Outcome
benefit-cost ratioe3
Direction
Higheste3
Value
1.77e3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e3

“Highest gross returns (`84,560), net returns (`54,040) and benefit-cost ratio (1.77) were found in mustard + chickpea 5:2 row ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1195 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nutrient uptake was maximum in the mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping system

Taxon
mustarde4
Treatment
mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping systeme4
Outcome
nutrient uptakee4
Direction
maximume4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e4

“Analysis of nutrient uptake revealed maximum nutrient uptake in mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping system which led to better vegetative growth and higher yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1360 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping system was associated with higher yields and better vegetative growth

Taxon
mustarde4
Treatment
mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping systeme4
Outcome
yieldse4
Direction
highere4
Qualifier
better vegetative growthe4

Verbatim

e4

“Analysis of nutrient uptake revealed maximum nutrient uptake in mustard + chickpea 2:5 intercropping system which led to better vegetative growth and higher yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1360 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend intercropping mustard with chickpea in dryland areas as beneficial

Taxon
mustarde5
Outcome
beneficial effects of intercropping mustard with chickpeae5
Setting
dryland arease5

Verbatim

e5

“The above research aptly highlighted the beneficial effects of intercropping mustard with chickpea in dryland areas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1362–1477 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

102 papers: 93 positive, 9 negative or no effect

92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

98 papers more in this group

See all 102 papers →

inoculation · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

217 papers: 200 positive, 17 negative or no effect

199 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

213 papers more in this group

See all 217 papers →

fertilization · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

345 papers: 326 positive, 19 negative or no effect

325 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

341 papers more in this group

See all 345 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.