Abstract
Abstract A field experiment was carried out to find out the effect of N, P and biofertilizers (Azotobacter and phosphate solubilizing bacteria [PSB]) on partitioning of photosynthates, N and P and growth and yield attributes and yield of fodder sorghum-mustard cropping system in north west India. It was observed that yield of fodder sorghum on fresh as well as dry weight basis obtained due to recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF, 60 kg N + 12.9 kg P ha−1) and half RDF + biofertilizers was not only highest but also significantly higher than that of half RDF and control. However, N and P uptake by fodder sorghum was significantly higher when supplied with RDF. Results on the succeeding crop of mustard showed that stems had a maximum share in total dry matter accumulation regardless of nutrient management practices. Up to 90 days after sowing (DAS), the total phytomass accumulation of mustard was statistically equal under previously applied RDF and half RDF + biofertilizers treatments. At later stages, RDF produced significantly higher dry matter accumulation. Regarding directly applied nutrients, RDF (80 kg N + 17.2 kg P ha−1) produced the highest phytomass throughout the crop growth period of mustard. Mustard crop gave significantly higher seed yield due to residual and directly applied RDF as compared to that of other residual and directly applied nutrients, respectively barring half RDF + biofertilizers. Only 22.5 – 24.0% of phytosynthates transformed into sink, i.e. harvest index (HI). However, more than 80% of N was partitioned into grain (HIN). Available N had a negative effect on nitrogen use-efficiency (NUE). Agronomic efficiency and apparent recovery of N in mustard were highest due to directly applied half RDF + biofertilizers.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Recommended fertilizer and half fertilizer plus biofertilizers gave highest sorghum yield.
Verbatim
e0“yield of fodder sorghum on fresh as well as dry weight basis obtained due to recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF, 60 kg N + 12.9 kg P ha−1) and half RDF + biofertilizers was not only highest but also significantly higher than that of half RDF and control”
Claim · model-written summary
Recommended fertilizer raised sorghum N and P uptake.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“N and P uptake by fodder sorghum was significantly higher when supplied with RDF”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard stems had the greatest dry matter share across management practices.
Verbatim
e0“stems had a maximum share in total dry matter accumulation regardless of nutrient management practices”
t0“N and P in mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard phytomass through day 90 was statistically equal after RDF and half RDF plus biofertilizers.
Verbatim
e0“Up to 90 days after sowing (DAS), the total phytomass accumulation of mustard was statistically equal under previously applied RDF and half RDF + biofertilizers treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
At later stages RDF produced significantly higher mustard dry matter.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“At later stages, RDF produced significantly higher dry matter accumulation”
t0“N and P in mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Directly applied RDF gave highest mustard phytomass throughout growth.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“RDF (80 kg N + 17.2 kg P ha−1) produced the highest phytomass throughout the crop growth period of mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Residual and directly applied RDF increased mustard seed yield relative to other nutrient treatments except half RDF plus biofertilizers.
Verbatim
e0“Mustard crop gave significantly higher seed yield due to residual and directly applied RDF as compared to that of other residual and directly applied nutrients, respectively barring half RDF + biofertilizers”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard harvest index was 22.5 – 24.0%.
Verbatim
e0“Only 22.5 – 24.0% of phytosynthates transformed into sink, i.e. harvest index (HI)”
t0“N and P in mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
More than 80% of mustard N was partitioned into grain.
Verbatim
e0“more than 80% of N was partitioned into grain (HIN)”
t0“N and P in mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Available N was negatively related to nitrogen use efficiency.
Verbatim
e0“Available N had a negative effect on nitrogen use-efficiency (NUE)”
t0“N and P in mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Direct half RDF plus biofertilizers gave highest mustard agronomic efficiency and N recovery.
- Taxon
- mustarde0
- Treatment
- directly applied half RDF + biofertilizerse0
- Outcome
- Agronomic efficiency and apparent recovery of Ne0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Agronomic efficiency and apparent recovery of N in mustard were highest due to directly applied half RDF + biofertilizers”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · SorghumPositive and negative results
110 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
114 papers more in this group
See all 118 papers →nitrogen · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
286 papers more in this group
See all 290 papers →fertilization · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
417 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
442 papers more in this group
See all 446 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.