Comparative performance of gypsum and micro-ionized sulphur on wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the winter season of 201011 at Pantnagar, to compare the response of gypsum and micronized sulphur in variety PBW 502 of wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.) emend. Fiori & Paol.]. Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum. However, foliar application of gypsum @ 2% gave higher value of the above-men- tioned parameter than foliar application @ 2% of microionized sulphur. At 60 kg S application rate, micro-ionized S gave about 8% more grain yield than gypsum; however, in case of foliar application 1.5% higher yield was noticed in gypsum than micro-ionized S. Application of 40 and 60 kg S/ha either through gypsum or microionized S failed to give significant difference on wheat performance.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microionized sulphur gave higher wheat growth and yield traits than gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/hae0
Outcome: shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulatione0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

*Triticum aestivum* · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0
“Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 214–586 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microionized sulphur gave higher wheat yield than gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/hae0
Outcome: yield attributes and yielde0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 214–586 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microionized sulphur gave higher wheat NPK and sulfur uptake than gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/hae0
Outcome: NPK and S uptakee0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 214–586 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microionized sulphur improved wheat grain quality parameters over gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/hae0
Outcome: grain protein, starch, wet glu- tene0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 214–586 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microionized sulphur improved sedimentation value and hectolitre weight over gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/hae0
Outcome: sedimentation value, hectolitre weighte0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 214–586 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microionized sulphur improved economic returns over gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/hae0
Outcome: gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratioe0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Microionized sulphur as soil application@ 60 kg/ha gave higher value of shoot count, plant height, dry-matter ac- cumulation and yield attributes and yield, NPK and S uptake, quality parameters like grain protein, starch, wet glu- ten, sedimentation value, hectolitre weight and economics parameters, viz. gross returns, net return, benefit: cost ratio compared to gypsum.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 214–586 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar gypsum at 2% gave higher performance than foliar microionized sulphur at 2%.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: foliar application of gypsum @ 2%e0
Outcome: above-men- tioned parametere0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: foliar application @ 2% of microionized sulphure0

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

Verbatim

e0
“foliar application of gypsum @ 2% gave higher value of the above-men- tioned parameter than foliar application @ 2% of microionized sulphur”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–735 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 60 kg sulfur, microionized sulphur gave about 8% more grain yield than gypsum.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: micro-ionized Se0
Outcome: grain yielde0
Direction: moree0
Value: 8%e0
Qualifier: 60 kg S application ratee0
Comparator: gypsume0

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

Verbatim

e0
“At 60 kg S application rate, micro-ionized S gave about 8% more grain yield than gypsum”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 737–824 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar gypsum gave 1.5% higher yield than microionized sulfur.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment: gypsume0
Outcome: yielde0
Direction: highere0
Value: 1.5%e0
Comparator: micro-ionized Se0

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

Verbatim

e0
“in case of foliar application 1.5% higher yield was noticed in gypsum than micro-ionized S”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 835–925 · show in text ↑

t0
“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–88 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfur rates of 40 and 60 kg/ha did not differ significantly in wheat performance.

Taxon: wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment: 40 and 60 kg S/hae0
Outcome: wheat performancee0
Comparator: gypsum or microionized Se0

Not reportedDirection

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

Verbatim

e0
“Application of 40 and 60 kg S/ha either through gypsum or microionized S failed to give significant difference on wheat performance.”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 927–1059 · show in text ↑

sulfur atom · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

51 papers: 44 positive, 7 negative or no effect

43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

no effect
Sulfur rate, source and timing did not affect protein concentration on high SOM soils.
Do Hard Red Spring Wheat Varieties Vary in Their Response to Sulfur? · 2019
Opposite direction
no effect
Sulfur did not affect late harvested forage protein.
Sulfur and Nitrogen Fertilization of Winter Wheat · 1992
Opposite direction
negative
At 100% N, increasing sulfur decreased wheat protein concentration.
Wheat Grain Yield and Protein Concentration Response to Nitrogen and Sulfur Rates · 2020
Opposite direction

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 papers →

sulfur atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

66 papers: 51 positive, 15 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

no effect
Other sulfur-containing sodium salts did not alleviate aluminum stress.
Hydrogen Sulfide Alleviates Aluminum Toxicity in Germinating Wheat Seedlings · 2010
Opposite direction
negative
Increasing sulphur addition significantly decreased wheat-grain selenium at one field site.
Evidence of low selenium concentrations in UK bread‐making wheat grain · 2002
Opposite direction
no effect
S deficiency did not significantly affect grain N and S content.
Co-ordinated expression of amino acid metabolism in response to N and S deficiency during wheat grain filling · 2008
Opposite directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

62 papers more in this group

See all 66 papers →

sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

148 papers: 124 positive, 24 negative or no effect

123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

no effect
Sulfur application yielded hardly any benefit.
Landscape positions dictating crop fertilizer responses in wheat-based farming systems of East African Highlands · 2020
Opposite direction
no effect
Sulphur fertiliser had little effect on grain yield or grain nitrogen and sulphur concentration and uptake.
Management of nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser for improved bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) quality · 2001
Opposite direction
no effect
Sulfur rate, source and timing did not affect yield on soils with SOM above 20 g kg −1.
Do Hard Red Spring Wheat Varieties Vary in Their Response to Sulfur? · 2019
Opposite direction

144 papers more in this group

See all 148 papers →

sulfur atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

33 papers: 31 positive, 2 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

no effect
Sulphur dusting did not prevent kernel smudge in maturing crops.
The "BLACK-POINT" OR "KERNEL SMUDGE" DISEASE OF CEREALS · 1938
Opposite direction
no effect
Radiation use efficiency was conservative with sulphur fertilization.
Productivity of wheat/faba bean intercropping systems in response to sulphur fertilization and seed rate under contrasting management conditions · 2012
Opposite direction
positive
Bioactive sulfur coated urea at 130 kg N ha -1 significantly increased wheat leaf area index to 5.67.
Slow-release nitrogen fertilizers enhance growth, yield, NUE in wheat crop and reduce nitrogen losses under an arid environment · 2021
Same direction

29 papers more in this group

See all 33 papers →

sulfur atom · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

application · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

43 papers: 38 positive, 5 negative or no effect

37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

no effect
Combining foliar Zn with N, P or K did not adversely affect grain yield and other nutritional quality.
Effects of Zn, macronutrients, and their interactions through foliar applications on winter wheat grain nutritional quality · 2017
Opposite direction
no effect
Foliar Cu applications had no appreciable effect on grain quality parameters (hectolitre weight, moisture or protein content).
The effect of foliar copper application on grain yield and quality of wheat · 2004
Opposite direction
no effect
Glycerol spraying caused no noticeable wheat seed quality degradation.
Application of Glycerol for Induced Powdery Mildew Resistance in Triticum aestivum L. · 2016
Opposite direction

39 papers more in this group

See all 43 papers →

application · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

125 papers: 110 positive, 15 negative or no effect

109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

no effect
Foliar fungicide had no effect on grain protein, head density or kernels per head of winter wheat.
Planting Date and Foliar Fungicide Effects on Yield Components and Grain Traits of Winter Wheat · 2001
Opposite direction
no effect
Foliar Zn had no significant effect on wheat grain protein concentration.
Foliar zinc fertilization improves the zinc nutritional value of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain · 2011
Opposite direction
no effect
Foliar fungicide had no effect on wheat grain protein.
Nitrogen and Foliar Fungicide Effects on Winter Wheats · 1993
Opposite direction

121 papers more in this group

See all 125 papers →

lime · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

173 papers: 140 positive, 33 negative or no effect

139 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

no effect
Lime and PG additions had no long-term effect on wheat yield.
Lime and phosphogypsum application and sulfate retention in subtropical soils under no-till system · 2013
Opposite direction
negative
Fertilization without lime significantly decreased soil pH and crop yield relative to fertilization with lime in 2012–2018.
Interaction of liming and long-term fertilization increased crop yield and phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) through mediating exchangeable cations in acidic soil under wheat–maize cropping system · 2020 · compared with fertilizer with lime treatments
Opposite direction
no effect
Liming the Al-toxic soil to pH 5.8 equalized top yields of the two wheat varieties.
Opposite Alluminum and Manganese Tolerances of Two Wheat Varieties¹ · 1973
Opposite direction

169 papers more in this group

See all 173 papers →

8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.

Abstract

Claims 10

The same questions in other papers

sulfur atom · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

sulfur atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

sulfur atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

sulfur atom · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

application · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

application · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

lime · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results