Abstract
Abstract The effects of triple superphosphate (TS) and liming on macronutrient accumulation and root growth of Pioneer 3072 and Cargill 505 corn hybrids were studied. Corn plants were grown up to 30 days in pots with 7 L of a dark red Latosol sandy loam (Haplortox). Lime was applied to raise base saturation to 30, 50, and 70%, in two levels of phosphorus (P) fertilization with TS (0 and 200 ppm P). There was an increase in root surface due to lime only in pots without TS, with no effects on plant growth or nutrition. Both corn hybrids responded to P fertilization, but Pioneer yielded more dry matter than Cargill. The roots of Cargill were thicker and, when in TS presence, were longer and had a larger surface than Pioneer. There was an increase in macronutrient uptake in the P fertilized pots. Pioneer required more nutrients and showed a higher efficiency in acquiring and utilizing the nutrients from the soil. A higher response of Pioneer in dry matter and nutrient acquisition was more related to the physiological efficiency than to root morphology.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Lime increased root surface only without triple superphosphate.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- limee0
- Outcome
- root surfacee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- pots without TSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was an increase in root surface due to lime only in pots without TS”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime did not affect plant growth or nutrition.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- plant growth or nutritione0
- Direction
- no effectse0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with no effects on plant growth or nutrition”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Both corn hybrids responded to phosphorus fertilization.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- P fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- respondede0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both corn hybrids responded to P fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Pioneer produced more dry matter than Cargill.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Material
- Pioneere0
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- Cargille0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pioneer yielded more dry matter than Cargill”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Cargill roots were thicker than Pioneer roots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The roots of Cargill were thicker and, when in TS presence, were longer and had a larger surface than Pioneer”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
With TS, Cargill roots were longer and had greater surface than Pioneer roots.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Material
- Cargille1
- Treatment
- TSe0
- Outcome
- longer and had a larger surfacee0
- Direction
- longere0
- Comparator
- Pioneere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when in TS presence, were longer and had a larger surface than Pioneer”
t0“corn”
e1“The roots of Cargill were thicker and, when in TS presence, were longer and had a larger surface than Pioneer”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilization increased macronutrient uptake.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- P fertilizede0
- Outcome
- macronutrient uptakee0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was an increase in macronutrient uptake in the P fertilized pots”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Pioneer required more nutrients than Cargill.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Material
- Pioneere0
- Outcome
- nutrientse0
- Direction
- moree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pioneer required more nutrients and showed a higher efficiency in acquiring and utilizing the nutrients from the soil”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Pioneer acquired and used soil nutrients more efficiently.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Material
- Pioneere0
- Outcome
- efficiency in acquiring and utilizing the nutrientse0
- Direction
- highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pioneer required more nutrients and showed a higher efficiency in acquiring and utilizing the nutrients from the soil”
t0“corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Pioneer dry matter and nutrient acquisition responses related more to physiological efficiency than root morphology.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Material
- Pioneere0
- Outcome
- dry matter and nutrient acquisitione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- physiological efficiency than to root morphologye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A higher response of Pioneer in dry matter and nutrient acquisition was more related to the physiological efficiency than to root morphology”
t0“corn”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 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.