Abstract
An experiment was done in plots of summer maize field wi th different fertilizer treatments.The results show that the soil organic matter ,total nitrogen and available nitrogen are higher in the plots applied with EM c ompost than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost and chemic al fertilizer. LAI, leaf chlorophyll content,the biomass of canopy,leaves stem s ,ears and grains of maize,which have similar variation trends in different ferti lizer treatments,were higher in plots applied with EM compost than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost and chemical fertilizer.The more th e compost input,the more obvious difference in the values.Maize yields in th e plots applied with EM compost are 11%～20% higher than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost.The more the compost input,the more remarkabl e increase of the maize yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
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
Claim · model-written summary
EM compost plots had higher soil organic matter, total nitrogen and available nitrogen.
- Treatment
- EM c omposte0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter ,total nitrogen and available nitrogene0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- traditional compost and chemic al fertilizere0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil organic matter ,total nitrogen and available nitrogen are higher in the plots applied with EM c ompost than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost and chemic al fertilizer”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
EM compost increased maize leaf area index and leaf chlorophyll content relative to the other fertilizers.
- Treatment
- EM composte0
- Outcome
- LAI, leaf chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- traditional compost and chemical fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LAI, leaf chlorophyll content,the biomass of canopy,leaves stem s ,ears and grains of maize,which have similar variation trends in different ferti lizer treatments,were higher in plots applied with EM compost than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost and chemical fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM compost increased maize canopy, leaf and stem biomass relative to other fertilizers.
- Treatment
- EM composte0
- Outcome
- biomass of canopy,leaves stem se0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- traditional compost and chemical fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LAI, leaf chlorophyll content,the biomass of canopy,leaves stem s ,ears and grains of maize,which have similar variation trends in different ferti lizer treatments,were higher in plots applied with EM compost than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost and chemical fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM compost increased maize ear and grain biomass relative to other fertilizers.
- Treatment
- EM composte0
- Outcome
- ears and grains of maizee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- traditional compost and chemical fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LAI, leaf chlorophyll content,the biomass of canopy,leaves stem s ,ears and grains of maize,which have similar variation trends in different ferti lizer treatments,were higher in plots applied with EM compost than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost and chemical fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater compost input made treatment differences in measured maize traits more pronounced.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The more th e compost input,the more obvious difference in the values”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield with EM compost was 11%～20% higher than with the same amount of traditional compost.
- Treatment
- EM composte0
- Outcome
- Maize yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11%～20%e0
- Comparator
- traditional composte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize yields in th e plots applied with EM compost are 11%～20% higher than those applied with the same amount of traditional compost”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher compost input produced a more remarkable maize yield increase.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The more the compost input,the more remarkabl e increase of the maize yield”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
158 papers more in this group
See all 162 papers →inoculation · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
156 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
167 papers more in this group
See all 171 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
287 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
534 papers more in this group
See all 538 papers →inoculation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
634 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
695 papers more in this group
See all 699 papers →fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 149 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
1,361 papers more in this group
See all 1,365 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.