Abstract
The study was conducted to determine the effects of applying wood-ash to two soils amended with partially-decomposed cattle and chicken manure on the uptake of nutrients, early growth and dry matter yields of maize (Zea mays L.). A clay and silty loam soil was used. Manure was applied to each soil in pots at rates equivalent to 0, 5, and 15 t ha− 1, while ash was applied to each of the manure treatments at rates equivalent to 0 and 2 t ha− 1. In both soils, the addition of chicken manure produced higher plant height, stem diameter, leaves per plant, dry matter yield and tissue concentration of protein, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) than cattle manure. The responses of maize due to manure application were higher in the loam than clay soil. Application of cattle manure produced responses which were less than control in many cases. This was presumed to be due to microbial immobilization of nutrients. Generally, wood-ash improved the responses of maize in the loam but not in the clay soil. The addition of wood-ash to manure in clay soil reduced plant height, dry matter yield, plant tissue protein and phosphorus of maize compared to the control. In both soils, however, the addition of wood-ash improved responses where cattle and not chicken manure was applied. In the latter, the increases in response due to manure rate were higher without ash than with ash. Within the cattle manure rates, wood-ash produced better responses when 5 t ha− 1 manure was applied compared to 15 t ha− 1. It is suggested that higher rates of wood-ash application may have been necessary.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure produced higher maize height, stem diameter, leaves per plant and dry matter yield than cattle manure in both soils.
- Treatment
- chicken manuree0
- Outcome
- plant height, stem diameter, leaves per plant, dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- cattle manuree0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both soils, the addition of chicken manure produced higher plant height, stem diameter, leaves per plant, dry matter yield and tissue concentration of protein, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) than cattle manure”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure produced higher tissue protein, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations than cattle manure.
- Treatment
- chicken manuree0
- Outcome
- tissue concentration of protein, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- cattle manuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both soils, the addition of chicken manure produced higher plant height, stem diameter, leaves per plant, dry matter yield and tissue concentration of protein, nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) than cattle manure”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize responses to manure were higher in loam than clay soil.
- Treatment
- manure applicatione0
- Outcome
- responses of maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- clay soile0
- Setting
- loame0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The responses of maize due to manure application were higher in the loam than clay soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Cattle manure produced responses below control in many cases.
- Treatment
- cattle manuree0
- Outcome
- responsese0
- Direction
- less thane0
- Qualifier
- in many casese0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of cattle manure produced responses which were less than control in many cases”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed reduced cattle manure responses to microbial immobilization of nutrients.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This was presumed to be due to microbial immobilization of nutrients”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Wood ash generally improved maize responses in loam soil.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Generally, wood-ash improved the responses of maize in the loam but not in the clay soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Wood ash did not generally improve maize responses in clay soil.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Generally, wood-ash improved the responses of maize in the loam but not in the clay soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding wood ash to manure in clay reduced maize height and dry matter yield relative to control.
- Treatment
- wood-ash to manuree0
- Outcome
- plant height, dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- controle0
- Setting
- clay soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of wood-ash to manure in clay soil reduced plant height, dry matter yield, plant tissue protein and phosphorus of maize compared to the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding wood ash to manure in clay reduced maize tissue protein and phosphorus relative to control.
- Treatment
- wood-ash to manuree0
- Outcome
- plant tissue protein and phosphoruse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- controle0
- Setting
- clay soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of wood-ash to manure in clay soil reduced plant height, dry matter yield, plant tissue protein and phosphorus of maize compared to the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Wood ash improved responses with cattle manure in both soils.
- Treatment
- wood-ashe0
- Outcome
- responsese0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- where cattle and not chicken manure was appliede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both soils, however, the addition of wood-ash improved responses where cattle and not chicken manure was applied”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With chicken manure, response increases due to manure rate were greater without ash than with ash.
- Treatment
- manure ratee0
- Outcome
- increases in responsee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- without ashe0
- Comparator
- with ashe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the latter, the increases in response due to manure rate were higher without ash than with ash”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
With cattle manure, wood ash produced better responses at 5 than 15 t ha− 1 manure.
- Treatment
- wood-ashe0
- Outcome
- better responsese0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- 5 t ha− 1e0
- Comparator
- 15 t ha− 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Within the cattle manure rates, wood-ash produced better responses when 5 t ha− 1 manure was applied compared to 15 t ha− 1”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggested that higher rates of wood ash may have been necessary.
- Outcome
- higher rates of wood-ash applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It is suggested that higher rates of wood-ash application may have been necessary”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
235 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
258 papers more in this group
See all 262 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.