ArticleScientific reports2026
Conservation tillage and sprinkler irrigation for sustainable water management and enhanced crop yields in maize and field pea cropping system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The conservation agriculture (CA)-based approaches, including zero tillage (ZT)/reduced tillage (RT) with pulse-based cropping systems, support climate resilience in the long-run. However, the support services of CA are increasingly evident under irrigated agro-ecologies with normal/flood irrigation. Necessarily, the benefits of CA and pulse-based cropping intensification must be explored in under sprinkler irrigation system because of anticipated water scarcity across the globe. We aimed to compare the conservation tillage x sprinkler irrigation scheduling with conventional tillage (CT) and flood irrigation in a maize (Zea mays L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping system for two years. The study was undertaken in split-plot design with three tillage systems in main plots: ZT, reduced tillage (RT), and CT in both crops and six irrigation management subplots such as sprinkler irrigation and normal/flood irrigation scheduling at branching, pod formation, and branching + pod formation stages of field pea. Tillage practices followed an order of ZT > RT > CT (p < 0.05) for productivity of both crops. The ZT with sprinkler irrigation at branching + pod formation stages significantly increased field pea yield by 70% (CI 95%) and maize yield by 33.1% (CI 95%) compared with CT and flood irrigation (conventional practice). Consequently, ZT with sprinkler irrigation resulted in 18.8% and 6.7% (CI 95%) higher system productivity compared with CT and flood irrigation (p < 0.05). The ZT resulted in an additional net benefit of INR 45,912 compared with CT. Besides, sprinkler-irrigation provided an additional benefit of INR 13,903 compared with flood irrigation. The reduction in tillage intensity (ZT and RT) significantly increased water-use-efficiency (WUE) and water productivity (WP) compared to CT. Notably, ZT with sprinkler irrigation reduced the consumptive use of water compared to conventional practice. In a system perspective, ZT with sprinkler irrigation (at branch and pod formation) increased 59.2% WUE and 75.6% WP than conventional practice. Thus, in arid and semi-arid regions, where water resources are scarce, conservation tillage with micro-irrigation can be adopted in pulse-based cropping system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.