Try:droughtFusariumnitrogen fertilizerArabidopsisseed germination

“yield decrease”

14 matches

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

2010

Refine ·

More filters

Clear filters

paper W2558794924 ✕

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: controle1
Outcome: grain yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 48.0e1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: controle1
Outcome: stover yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 32.2e1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: RDF (T2)e1
Outcome: grain yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 32.8e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: ZnSO4 (T3)e1
Outcome: grain yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 12.2e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: biomix (T4)e1
Outcome: grain yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 7.7e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: irrigation (T7)e1
Outcome: grain yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 20.2e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: RDF (T2)e1
Outcome: stover yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 22.7e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: ZnSO4 (T3)e1
Outcome: stover yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 7.9e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: biomix (T4)e1
Outcome: stover yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 4.0e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased stover yield by 16.0% relative to the full package T1.

Taxon: pearl milletCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment: irrigation (T7)e1
Outcome: stover yielde1
Direction: decreasee1
Value: 16.0e1
Qualifier: Non-adoption of individual factorse1
Comparator: T1 (FPP)e1

Verbatim

e0
“on the grain productivity of pearl millet”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–278

e1
“Non-adoption of individual factors RDF (T2), ZnSO4 (T3), biomix (T4), thinning and gap filling (T5), weeding and hoeing (T6) and irrigation (T7) caused a decrease in grain yield by 32.8, 12.2, 7.7, 16.7, 30.1, 20.2, 48.0 (control) per cent and stover yield by 22.7, 7.9, 4.0, 10.0, 18.9, 16.0 and 32.2 per cent (control) than T1 (FPP), respectively”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–1057

Title

CONTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION FACTORS TO THE YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF PEARL MILLET (PENNISETUM GLAUCUM (L.) R. BR.)

Arun Kumar; Anil Kumar; L. K. Midha; et al. 2014

Other claims from this paper (16)

Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased grain yield by 32.8% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased grain yield by 12.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased grain yield by 7.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased grain yield by 16.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased grain yield by 30.1% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of irrigation (T7) decreased grain yield by 20.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased grain yield by 48.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of RDF (T2) decreased stover yield by 22.7% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of ZnSO4 (T3) decreased stover yield by 7.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of biomix (T4) decreased stover yield by 4.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of thinning and gap filling (T5) decreased stover yield by 10.0% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Non-adoption of weeding and hoeing (T6) decreased stover yield by 18.9% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect The control without any of the production factors decreased stover yield by 32.2% relative to the full package T1.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum gross returns (Rs. 48727/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum net returns (Rs. 16926/ha), with T4 ranked next.
Intervention effect Treatment T1 gave the maximum benefit-cost ratio (1.53), with T4 ranked next.

Lexical search (BM25). All words must match; if nothing does, any word. Organism names also match every spelling of the same organism. No semantic search yet.

“yield decrease”

Claim types

Direction of the findings

Over time

Claim type

Research area

Polarity

Statistics