Intervention effectmodel-written summary

At the specified planting density and fertilization, protein content was highest.

A claim from Effects of different fertilizations and planting densities on yield and quality of high-oil maize variety115 · 2005

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At the specified planting density and fertilization, protein content was highest.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
planting density was 52500/hm 2, and the fertilization was N 360kg/hm 2, P 2O 5120kg/hm 2 and K 2O 180 kg/hm 2e0
Outcome
protein contente0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while the planting density was 52500/hm 2, and the fertilization was N 360kg/hm 2, P 2O 5120kg/hm 2 and K 2O 180 kg/hm 2, the comprehensive trait of the variety, including the grain yield, the percentage of oil content, the protein content and the aminoacid content was the highest; and the starch content was quite low”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 207–526
t0

“maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–97

Title

Effects of different fertilizations and planting densities on yield and quality of high-oil maize variety115

Jianming Wu Guangxi Agricultural Science 2005

Other claims from this paper (4)

Record rev-44aead2bcfe3dba2978fb461b3eca0f8c21665fdbd3a55d43419b77b85326ef8 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer

density · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

33 papers: 19 positive, 14 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this claim · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Crude protein fell by 6 to 8 g per kg as density increased.

    Plant Density and Hybrid Influence on Corn Forage Yield and Quality · 1999

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Higher plant density lowered crude protein from 76 to 72 g kg −1.

    Row Width and Plant Density Effect on Corn Forage Hybrids · 2002 · compared with lowest level

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Higher plant density reduced maize grain protein content.

    EFFECT OF FERTILIZER LEVELS AND PLANT DENSITIES ON YIELD AND PROTEIN CONTENTS OF AUTUMN PLANTED MAIZE · 2010

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Increasing plant density from the lowest level to the highest decreased crude protein from 76 to 72 g kg−1.

    Row Width and Plant Density Effect on Corn Forage Hybrids · 2002 · compared with the lowest level

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Protein content declined significantly with each density increment of 20,000 plant/ha.

    Effects of Harvest Date, Plant Density, and Hybrid on Corn Grain Quality1 · 1975

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Increasing density reduced green leaves, leaf area, two-ear plants, kernels, ear weight, shelling, kernel weight, ear and grain yields, harvest index, nitrogen uptake and protein yield.

    Response of white maize hybrids to plant densities and nitrogen fertilizer rates · 2019 · compared with 20000

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Increasing planting density decreased crude grain protein content in all varieties, by 4.15-8.50%.

    Effect of Planting Density on the Nutritional Quality of Grain in Representative High-Yielding Maize Varieties from Different Eras · 2023

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Seed rates did not affect crude protein content.

    Quality of fodder maize (Zea mays L.) and soil health influenced by nitrogen, seed rate and zinc in Kashmir Valley · 2012

    Opposite direction

24 papers more in this group

See all 33 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

262 papers: 236 positive, 26 negative or no effect

235 papers in the same direction as this claim · 23 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    Higher nitrogen fertilization did not decrease nutritional quality of maize seed protein.

    Relationship of the Kernel Sink for N to Maize Productivity1 · 1978

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Extreme drought and fertilizer adversely affected grain protein content.

    Effects of Drought Stress and Different Nitrogen Levels on Morphological Traits of Proline in Leaf and Protein of Corn Seed (Zea mays L.) · 2012

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Switching to P-based manure and compost management reduced corn protein by 8 to 9%.

    Nitrogen‐ vs. Phosphorus‐Based Manure and Compost Management of Corn · 2015 · compared with N‐

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Fertilizer sulfur did not affect grain crude protein.

    Fertilizer Sulfur Effects on Corn Yield and Plant Sulfur Concentration · 1995

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    The organo-mineral nutrient solution decreased crude protein content in maize fodder.

    Comparisons of nutrient solutions from organic and chemical fertilizer sources on herbage yield and quality of hydroponically produced maize fodder · 2020

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    P fertilization had no effect on crude protein yield in maize.

    N, P or K doses on the dry matter and crude protein yield in maize and sorghum for silage · 2017

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Protein content of baby corn did not differ significantly among the organic manure treatments.

    Comparative efficiency of three organic manures at varying rates of its application to baby corn · 2007

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Nitrogen fertilizer did not affect yields of protein, oil and starch kernel components.

    Nitrogen fertilizer applications to maize after alfalfa: grain yield, kernel composition, and plant mineral nutrients · 2014

    Opposite direction

253 papers more in this group

See all 262 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.