Paper · 2010 · Scientia Agricola

Extraction methods and availability of micronutrients for wheat under a no-till system with a surface application of lime

Adriel Ferreira da Fonseca; Eduardo Fávero Caires; Gabriel Barth

7
claims
7
verbatim quotes
37
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Micronutrient availability can be affected by the increase of the soil pH due to surface liming. A field trial was carried out on a loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Hapludox at Ponta Grossa, Paraná State, Brazil. The main objective was to evaluate the effects of surface liming and re-liming on the availability of micronutrients [copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn)] for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropped under a no-till system. A randomized complete block design was used in a split-plot arrangement. The main plots received surface lime applications (2, 4, and 6 Mg ha-1) in July 1993. In the subplots, surface lime (3 Mg ha-1) was applied again in June 2000. In 2003, before the wheat sowing, soil samples were taken at 0-5, 5-10, and 10-20 cm layers. Soil cationic micronutrients concentrations using different extractants (DTPA-TEA, Mehlich-1, HCl, and Mehlich-3) and solution/soil ratios were determined. Application of lime increased soil pH at 0-5, 5-10, and 10-20 cm. The increase in soil pH by liming did not affect soil organic carbon content. The Mehlich-3 solution had a greater capacity in extracting soil micronutrients. Increasing solution/soil ratio of the DTPA-TEA, Mehlich-1, and HCl solutions generally increased the extraction of Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn. Liming and re-liming caused a decrease in Mn concentration in the wheat leaves. Leaf concentrations of Cu, Fe and Zn were not affected by liming treatments. The solutions of DTPA-TEA, Mehlich-1, HCl, and Mehlich-3 were ineffective to predict the soil cationic micronutrients availability for a wheat crop after surface application of lime.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surface lime increased soil pH across three sampled depths.

Treatment
Application of limee0
Outcome
soil pHe0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
0-5, 5-10, and 10-20 cme0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Application of lime increased soil pH at 0-5, 5-10, and 10-20 cm.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–998 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming did not affect soil organic carbon content.

Treatment
liminge0
Outcome
soil organic carbon contente0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The increase in soil pH by liming did not affect soil organic carbon content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 999–1076 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mehlich-3 extracted more soil micronutrients.

Treatment
Mehlich-3 solutione0
Outcome
extracting soil micronutrientse0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Verbatim

e0

“The Mehlich-3 solution had a greater capacity in extracting soil micronutrients.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1077–1157 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing extractant solution-to-soil ratio generally increased Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn extraction.

Treatment
Increasing solution/soil ratioe0
Outcome
extraction of Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zne0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing solution/soil ratio of the DTPA-TEA, Mehlich-1, and HCl solutions generally increased the extraction of Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1158–1292 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming and re-liming decreased Mn in wheat leaves.

Organ / stage
leavese0
Treatment
Liming and re-liminge0
Outcome
Mn concentratione0
Direction
decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Liming and re-liming caused a decrease in Mn concentration in the wheat leaves.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1293–1372 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming treatments did not affect wheat leaf Cu, Fe and Zn concentrations.

Treatment
liming treatmentse0
Outcome
Leaf concentrations of Cu, Fe and Zne0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Leaf concentrations of Cu, Fe and Zn were not affected by liming treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1373–1449 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four extraction solutions failed to predict micronutrient availability for wheat after surface liming.

Outcome
soil cationic micronutrients availabilitye0
Qualifier
ineffective to predicte0

Not reportedComparatorValue

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“The solutions of DTPA-TEA, Mehlich-1, HCl, and Mehlich-3 were ineffective to predict the soil cationic micronutrients availability for a wheat crop after surface application of lime.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1450–1632 · show in text ↑

lime · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 30 positive, 1 negative or no effect

30 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

lime · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

55 papers: 46 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 46 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

51 papers more in this group

See all 55 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.