Abstract
ABSTRACT The development of cropping systems that simultaneously enhanced farm profitability, reduce energy dependence and limit greenhouse gas emissions is central to climate smart agriculture in south Asia. The study evaluated the energy balance, carbon footprint; carbon budgeting and economic performance of no‐till maize legume cropping systems under different residue based mulching practices in the lower Indo‐Gangetic plains of eastern India. A 2‐year field experiment (2017–2019) was conducted at Sriniketan, West Bengal; India, involving three maize based cropping systems (maize‐chickpea, maize‐lentil, and maize‐lathyrus) combined with five biomass mulching treatments. System productivity, energy input–output relationships, carbon efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic returns were quantified using standardized energy and emission coefficients. Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems. Residue‐based mulching significantly influenced system performance; the combination of in situ maize stalk mulch with paddy straw applied at 5 t ha −1 produced the highest energy use efficiency, energy productivity, gross returns, and benefit–cost ratio. Although biomass mulching increased carbon inputs and associated emissions related to no mulch treatments, higher crop biomass production under mulched plots improved carbon efficiency and the carbon sustainability index. The no mulch treatment exhibited the lowest carbon footprint due to reduced external carbon inputs, but at the expense of lower productivity and farm income. The results demonstrated the residue‐based no‐till maize‐legume systems can achieve a favourable balance between energy efficiency, economic viability, and carbon sustainability. Despite higher carbon inputs under biomass mulching increased biomass production improved carbon efficiency and carbon sustainability indices. The results indicate that optimized residue based no till maize‐legume systems can enhance productivity and farm income while maintaining acceptable productivity scaled environmental performance, supporting climate smart agriculture in the Indo‐Gangetic plains.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-chickpea systems had higher system productivity, energy output and net energy gain than maize-lentil and maize-lathyrus systems.
- Treatment
- maize‐chickpeae1
- Outcome
- system productivity, energy output, net energy gaine1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systemse1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-chickpea systems had higher profitability than maize-lentil and maize-lathyrus systems.
- Treatment
- maize‐chickpeae1
- Outcome
- profitabilitye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systemse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
In situ maize stalk mulch with paddy straw gave the highest energy use efficiency, energy productivity and gross returns.
- Treatment
- in situ maize stalk mulch with paddy strawe2
- Outcome
- energy use efficiency, energy productivity, gross returnse3
- Direction
- higheste3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“the combination of in situ maize stalk mulch with paddy straw applied at 5 t ha”
e3“produced the highest energy use efficiency, energy productivity, gross returns, and benefit–cost ratio”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
In situ maize stalk mulch with paddy straw gave the highest benefit-cost ratio.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“the combination of in situ maize stalk mulch with paddy straw applied at 5 t ha”
e3“produced the highest energy use efficiency, energy productivity, gross returns, and benefit–cost ratio”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass mulching increased carbon inputs and associated emissions relative to no mulch treatments.
- Treatment
- biomass mulchinge4
- Outcome
- carbon inputs and associated emissionse4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Comparator
- no mulch treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Although biomass mulching increased carbon inputs and associated emissions related to no mulch treatments”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher crop biomass under mulched plots improved carbon efficiency and the carbon sustainability index.
- Treatment
- mulched plotse5
- Outcome
- carbon efficiency and the carbon sustainability indexe5
- Direction
- improvede5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“higher crop biomass production under mulched plots improved carbon efficiency and the carbon sustainability index”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The no mulch treatment had the lowest carbon footprint, owing to reduced external carbon inputs.
- Treatment
- no mulch treatmente6
- Outcome
- carbon footprinte6
- Direction
- loweste6
- Qualifier
- reduced external carbon inputse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“The no mulch treatment exhibited the lowest carbon footprint due to reduced external carbon inputs”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The no mulch treatment had lower productivity and farm income.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“but at the expense of lower productivity and farm income”
e6“The no mulch treatment exhibited the lowest carbon footprint due to reduced external carbon inputs”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue-based mulching significantly influenced system performance.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Residue‐based mulching significantly influenced system performance”
e1“Among the cropping systems, maize‐chickpea consistently recorded higher system productivity, energy output, net energy gain, and profitability than maize‐lentil and maize‐lathyrus systems”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.