Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Meteorological parameters during (a) 2020; (b) 2021; (c) 2022; (d) 2023.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Schematic diagram showing Pusa N Doctor app implementation.

Here, DGCI is the dark green colour index; RGB is red, green and blue colour space; HSB is the hue, saturation and brightness colour space; and INSEY is the in-season estimated yield.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Treatments details of the validation plot.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Initial soil properties of the experimental field.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Maize plant height across the treatments at 30 DAS, 60 DAS, 90 DAS and at harvest.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Leaf area index (LAI) of maize across the treatments.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Crop growth rate (CGR) and relative growth rate (RGR) of maize across the treatments.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 3.

Effect of treatments on shelling (%) of maize.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on Harvest Index (%) in maize. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 6.

N (%) in maize plant at 40 DAS, 50 DAS, N (%) in maize grain and stover at harvest across the treatments.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 5.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the Physiological efficiency of nitrogen in maize. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the Partial Nitrogen Balance in maize. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the Internal Utilization Efficiency of Nitrogen in maize. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the Virtual Nitrogen Factor in maize. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Effect of different nitrogen management practices on the saving of cost over RDF ($/ha). Vertical bars represent standard error (SE) within each treatment. For treatment details, please refer

Table 2.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the GHGI of Nitrous oxide (kg CO2-eq/t). The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the Eco-efficiency index (US $/MJ) in maize. The black line within the plot represents the mean. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Effect of nitrogen management practices on the Eco-efficiency index (US $/kg CO2 eq) in maize. The black line within the plot represents the mean. The different lowercase letters correspond to the treatments are significantly different at p < 0.05 according to LSD.

More »

Fig 12 Expand