Paper · 2012 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Effect of mechanical planting and weeding on yield, water-use efficiency and cost of production under modified system of rice intensification

P C MOHAPATRA; M DIN; B C PARIDA; et al.

14
claims
29
verbatim quotes
12
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Efficiency of planting and weeding equipments developed at Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack was compared with traditional method of planting and weeding in relation to biomass yield, water-use efficiency (WUE) and net returns from SRI. The study showed that low plant density and high labour cost of SRI resulted in lower yield (3.77 against 4.52 tonnes/ha) and net returns (₹2 650 against ₹ 9 312/ha) compared to traditional method of cultivation. Mechanized planting and weeding of SRI enhanced its productivity to 4.24 tonnes/ha and profitability to ₹ 12 192/ ha. But it required that age of seedlings is increased from 8 to 16 days and density of hills is increased from 11 to 31/m2 with 4 (instead of single) plants/hill. Among mechanical planters, seeding by sprouted seeds on puddled soil by drum seeder was found to have significantly lower planting cost (₹ 515 against ₹ 1 332/ha) and lower total cost of production (₹ 16 355 against ₹17 767/ha). Average WUE (0.61 kg/m3) and grain yield (4.18 tonnes/ha) in weeded plots was double to un-weeded plots. Average cost of (single) weeding by weeders was ₹ 2 509 against ₹ 5 688/ha of manual weeding. Among the weeders, high efficiency in weed destruction and soil churning by star-cono weeder resulted in highest grain productivity and profitability in its favour.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SRI yielded 3.77 versus 4.52 tonnes/ha under traditional cultivation.

Treatment
SRIe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Value
3.77 against 4.52 tonnes/hae0
Comparator
traditional method of cultivatione0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low plant density and high labour cost of SRI resulted in lower yield (3.77 against 4.52 tonnes/ha) and net returns (₹2 650 against ₹ 9 312/ha) compared to traditional method of cultivation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–455 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SRI net returns were ₹2 650 versus ₹ 9 312/ha for traditional cultivation.

Treatment
SRIe0
Outcome
net returnse0
Direction
lowere0
Value
₹2 650 against ₹ 9 312/hae0
Comparator
traditional method of cultivatione0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low plant density and high labour cost of SRI resulted in lower yield (3.77 against 4.52 tonnes/ha) and net returns (₹2 650 against ₹ 9 312/ha) compared to traditional method of cultivation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–455 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mechanized SRI planting and weeding raised productivity to 4.24 tonnes/ha.

Treatment
Mechanized planting and weeding of SRIe0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
4.24 tonnes/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mechanized planting and weeding of SRI enhanced its productivity to 4.24 tonnes/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 457–539 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mechanized SRI planting and weeding raised profitability to ₹ 12 192/ ha.

Treatment
Mechanized planting and weeding of SRIe0
Outcome
profitabilitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
₹ 12 192/ hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mechanized planting and weeding of SRI enhanced its productivity to 4.24 tonnes/ha and profitability to ₹ 12 192/ ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 457–573 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mechanized system required older seedlings.

Outcome
age of seedlingse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
8 to 16 dayse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“age of seedlings is increased from 8 to 16 days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–643 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mechanized system required increased hill density.

Outcome
density of hillse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
11 to 31/m2e0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“density of hills is increased from 11 to 31/m2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–694 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mechanized system required four rather than one plants per hill.

Outcome
plants/hille0
Value
4 (instead of single) plants/hille0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with 4 (instead of single) plants/hill”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 695–733 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Drum seeding had lower planting cost than the comparison planter.

Treatment
seeding by sprouted seeds on puddled soil by drum seedere0
Outcome
planting coste0
Direction
lowere0
Value
₹ 515 against ₹ 1 332/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“seeding by sprouted seeds on puddled soil by drum seeder was found to have significantly lower planting cost (₹ 515 against ₹ 1 332/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–897 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drum seeding had lower total production cost.

Treatment
seeding by sprouted seeds on puddled soil by drum seedere1
Outcome
total cost of productione0
Direction
lowere0
Value
₹ 16 355 against ₹17 767/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“lower total cost of production (₹ 16 355 against ₹17 767/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–962 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
e1

“seeding by sprouted seeds on puddled soil by drum seeder”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–818 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeded plots had double the water use efficiency of unweeded plots, averaging 0.61 kg/m3.

Treatment
weeded plotse0
Outcome
WUEe0
Direction
doublee0
Value
0.61 kg/m3e0
Comparator
un-weeded plotse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Average WUE (0.61 kg/m3) and grain yield (4.18 tonnes/ha) in weeded plots was double to un-weeded plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 964–1067 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeded plots had double the grain yield of unweeded plots, averaging 4.18 tonnes/ha.

Treatment
weeded plotse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
doublee0
Value
4.18 tonnes/hae0
Comparator
un-weeded plotse0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Average WUE (0.61 kg/m3) and grain yield (4.18 tonnes/ha) in weeded plots was double to un-weeded plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 964–1067 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeder operation cost ₹ 2 509 compared with ₹ 5 688/ha for manual weeding.

Treatment
weeding by weederse0
Outcome
cost of (single) weedinge0
Value
₹ 2 509 against ₹ 5 688/hae0
Comparator
manual weedinge0

Not reportedDirection

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Average cost of (single) weeding by weeders was ₹ 2 509 against ₹ 5 688/ha of manual weeding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1161 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The star-cono weeder produced the highest grain productivity.

Treatment
star-cono weedere0
Outcome
grain productivitye0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“high efficiency in weed destruction and soil churning by star-cono weeder resulted in highest grain productivity and profitability in its favour”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1182–1326 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The star-cono weeder produced the highest profitability.

Treatment
star-cono weedere0
Outcome
profitabilitye0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“high efficiency in weed destruction and soil churning by star-cono weeder resulted in highest grain productivity and profitability in its favour”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1182–1326 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 121–125 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

729 papers: 587 positive, 142 negative or no effect

586 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 27 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

725 papers more in this group

See all 729 papers →

herbicide · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

802 papers: 725 positive, 77 negative or no effect

724 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

798 papers more in this group

See all 802 papers →

irrigation · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

1,171 papers: 906 positive, 265 negative or no effect

905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 201 in the opposite direction · 64 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

1,167 papers more in this group

See all 1,171 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.