Abstract
A field experiment was conducted on a Fatehpur loamy sand soil (Ustipsamments) deficient in Zn, Cu, B and marginal to adequate in Mo, Fe and Mn. Farmyard manure (FYM) and micronutrients applied to soil resulted in marked and significant increase in the micronutrients availability. Significant response of maize and wheat to both soil and foliar application of micronutrients was noticed, in both the treatments with and without FYM except maize which did not respond to the foliar application of B and Mo and soil application of B in the absence of FYM. Maize crop responded maximum to Zn and Cu and wheat to Mo, Fe, Mn and Zn. The magnitude of maize grain response to applied micronutrients was higher (2.8–15.7 q/ha) than that of wheat grain (0.5 to 7.5 q/ha). The response was higher in treatments that received FYM as compared to those that did not. Soil applied micronutrients were superior as compared to their foliar application.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Farmyard manure and soil-applied micronutrients significantly increased soil micronutrient availability.
- Treatment
- Farmyard manure (FYM) and micronutrients applied to soile0
- Outcome
- micronutrients availabilitye0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Farmyard manure (FYM) and micronutrients applied to soil resulted in marked and significant increase in the micronutrients availability”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize responded significantly to soil and foliar micronutrient application with and without FYM, except specified B and Mo applications without FYM.
- Treatment
- soil and foliar application of micronutrientse0
- Outcome
- response of maizee0
- Qualifier
- in both the treatments with and without FYMe0
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant response of maize and wheat to both soil and foliar application of micronutrients was noticed, in both the treatments with and without FYM except maize which did not respond to the foliar application of B and Mo and soil application of B in the absence of FYM”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat responded significantly to both soil and foliar micronutrient application with and without FYM.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- soil and foliar application of micronutrientse0
- Outcome
- response of maize and wheate0
- Qualifier
- with and without FYMe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant response of maize and wheat to both soil and foliar application of micronutrients was noticed, in both the treatments with and without FYM”
Claim · model-written summary
Without FYM, maize did not respond to foliar B application.
- Treatment
- foliar application of Be0
- Outcome
- did not responde0
- Direction
- did not responde0
- Qualifier
- in the absence of FYMe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize which did not respond to the foliar application of B and Mo and soil application of B in the absence of FYM”
Claim · model-written summary
Without FYM, maize did not respond to foliar Mo application.
- Treatment
- foliar application of B and Moe0
- Outcome
- did not responde0
- Direction
- did not responde0
- Qualifier
- in the absence of FYMe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize which did not respond to the foliar application of B and Mo and soil application of B in the absence of FYM”
Claim · model-written summary
Without FYM, maize did not respond to soil B application.
- Treatment
- soil application of Be0
- Outcome
- did not responde0
- Direction
- did not responde0
- Qualifier
- in the absence of FYMe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize which did not respond to the foliar application of B and Mo and soil application of B in the absence of FYM”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize responded most to Zn and Cu applications.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize crop responded maximum to Zn and Cu”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat responded most to Mo, Fe, Mn and Zn applications.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Mo, Fe, Mn and Zne0
- Outcome
- responded maximume1
- Direction
- maximume1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat to Mo, Fe, Mn and Zn”
e1“Maize crop responded maximum to Zn and Cu and wheat to Mo, Fe, Mn and Zn”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain response to micronutrients ranged from 2.8–15.7 q/ha.
- Treatment
- applied micronutrientse0
- Outcome
- maize grain responsee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.8–15.7 q/hae0
- Comparator
- wheat graine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The magnitude of maize grain response to applied micronutrients was higher (2.8–15.7 q/ha) than that of wheat grain (0.5 to 7.5 q/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain response to micronutrients ranged from 0.5 to 7.5 q/ha.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- applied micronutrientse0
- Outcome
- wheat graine0
- Value
- 0.5 to 7.5 q/hae0
- Comparator
- maize grain responsee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The magnitude of maize grain response to applied micronutrients was higher (2.8–15.7 q/ha) than that of wheat grain (0.5 to 7.5 q/ha)”
e1“wheat to Mo, Fe, Mn and Zn”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop response was higher with FYM than without it.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The response was higher in treatments that received FYM as compared to those that did not”
t0“Maize and Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil micronutrient application outperformed foliar application.
- Treatment
- Soil applied micronutrientse0
- Outcome
- superiore0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- foliar applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil applied micronutrients were superior as compared to their foliar application”
t0“Maize and Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
application · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →application · organism · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →micronutrient · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.