Paper · 2006 · ACTA AGRONOMICA SINICA

Effects of Different Sulphur Fertilizers on Yield and Quality of Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49

Zhu Yun

11
claims
28
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Sulphur(S)is an essential nutrient required for all living organisms.The needs of higher plants for S have been recognized for over two centuries.However,interest in this essential element has lagged behind other nutrients because until recently deficiency of S has not been as extensive as that of N,P and K.Over the last two decades,however,many regions in the world have a fundamental shift in the S balance toward deficit in agricultural systems for several reasons.High analysis N and P fertilizers have gradually replaced traditional ones that contain S.In addition,yields of agricultural crops have increased markedly,and in some cases more than doubled,resulting in increased removal of nutrients,including S from soils,and so on.Deficiency of S has been recognized as a limiting factor for crop production in many regions in the world.Wheat is the most widely cultivated crop in the world. Although the crop has a relatively low requirement for S,deficiency of S in wheat has been observed in many countries.Apart from the clear effects on crop growth and grain yield,S nutrition can also exert a large influence on the quality of wheat.Previous studies focused on effects of single S fertilizer on growth and yield of wheat.This paper aims to compare the effects of different S fertilizer treatments on yield and quality of winter wheat cultivar Yumai 49.The experiment was carried out with applying of 5 kinds of sulphur fertilizers,respectively to the fields with available S content of 15.8 mg·kg~(-1) at the rate of 60 kg·hm~(-2) sulphur.The results indicated that the photosynthesis(CAP)rates in the treatment of sulphur fertilizers were much higher,and exhibited slower declines at the late grain filling stage,for example,CAP of S deficiency treatment(C0)was lowered 9.8%,13.3%,11.9%,40.3% and 43.7% respectively,compared with the treatments of brimstone(C1),plaster(C2),calcium superphosphate(C3),sulphate ammonium(C4)and potassium sulphate(C5)at late filling stage(Fig.1).The dry matter accumulation,harvest index,and grain weight were increased and finally grain yield of C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 were 18.8%,20.3%,25.2%,18.5% and 14.9% higher respectively compared with C0,especially there was a significant difference at 0.01 probability level with C3(Table 1).Meanwhile,activity of nitrate reductase(NR)in flag leaves and glutenin accumulation in grain at filling stage were enhanced,and starch pasting parameters of flour relating to cooking qualities of Chinese noodle,such as pasting time,through viscosity,peak viscosity and final viscosity were improved by S treatments.Comparing roundly the effects of 5 kinds S fertilizers on physiological traits,yield and quality of Yumai 49,calcium superphosphate was the best.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur fertilizer treatments increased wheat photosynthesis rates and slowed their late-filling decline.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Material
Yumai 49t0
Organ / stage
late grain filling stagee0
Treatment
sulphur fertilizerse0
Outcome
photosynthesis(CAP)ratese0
Direction
much highere0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“the photosynthesis(CAP)rates in the treatment of sulphur fertilizers were much higher,and exhibited slower declines at the late grain filling stage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1579–1726 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Brimstone increased wheat grain yield by 18.8% versus sulfur deficiency.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
brimstonee1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
18.8%e0
Comparator
C0e0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“grain yield of C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 were 18.8%,20.3%,25.2%,18.5% and 14.9% higher respectively compared with C0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2077–2186 · show in text ↑
e1

“brimstone(C1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1862–1875 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plaster increased wheat grain yield by 20.3% versus sulfur deficiency.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
plastere1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
20.3%e0
Comparator
C0e0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“grain yield of C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 were 18.8%,20.3%,25.2%,18.5% and 14.9% higher respectively compared with C0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2077–2186 · show in text ↑
e1

“plaster(C2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1876–1887 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Calcium superphosphate increased wheat grain yield by 25.2% versus sulfur deficiency, significantly at the 0.01 level.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
calcium superphosphatee1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
25.2%e0
Comparator
C0e0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“grain yield of C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 were 18.8%,20.3%,25.2%,18.5% and 14.9% higher respectively compared with C0,especially there was a significant difference at 0.01 probability level with C3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2077–2266 · show in text ↑
e1

“calcium superphosphate(C3)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1888–1914 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphate ammonium increased wheat grain yield by 18.5% versus sulfur deficiency.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
sulphate ammoniume1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
18.5%e0
Comparator
C0e0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“grain yield of C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 were 18.8%,20.3%,25.2%,18.5% and 14.9% higher respectively compared with C0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2077–2186 · show in text ↑
e1

“sulphate ammonium(C4)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1915–1936 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium sulphate increased wheat grain yield by 14.9% versus sulfur deficiency.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
potassium sulphatee1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
14.9%e0
Comparator
C0e0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“grain yield of C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 were 18.8%,20.3%,25.2%,18.5% and 14.9% higher respectively compared with C0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2077–2186 · show in text ↑
e1

“potassium sulphate(C5)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1940–1962 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur fertilizers increased dry matter accumulation, harvest index, and grain weight.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
sulphur fertilizerse1
Outcome
dry matter accumulation,harvest index,and grain weighte0
Direction
increasede0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“The dry matter accumulation,harvest index,and grain weight were increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1991–2064 · show in text ↑
e1

“the treatment of sulphur fertilizers were much higher”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1611–1664 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur treatments enhanced flag-leaf nitrate reductase activity and grain glutenin accumulation.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
S treatmentse0
Outcome
activity of nitrate reductase(NR)in flag leaves and glutenin accumulation in graine0
Direction
enhancede0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“activity of nitrate reductase(NR)in flag leaves and glutenin accumulation in grain at filling stage were enhanced,and starch pasting parameters of flour relating to cooking qualities of Chinese noodle,such as pasting time,through viscosity,peak viscosity and final viscosity were improved by S treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2286–2590 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur treatments improved flour pasting time, through viscosity, and peak viscosity.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
S treatmentse0
Outcome
pasting time,through viscosity,peak viscositye0
Direction
improvede0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“starch pasting parameters of flour relating to cooking qualities of Chinese noodle,such as pasting time,through viscosity,peak viscosity and final viscosity were improved by S treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2404–2590 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur treatments improved flour final viscosity.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
S treatmentse0
Outcome
final viscositye0
Direction
improvede0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“final viscosity were improved by S treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2545–2590 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Calcium superphosphate was judged the best of the five sulphur fertilizers overall.

Taxon
Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
calcium superphosphate was the beste0

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

t0

“Winter Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.)Cultivar Yumai 49”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–116 · show in text ↑
e0

“calcium superphosphate was the best”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2700–2735 · show in text ↑

sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

148 papers: 124 positive, 24 negative or no effect

123 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

144 papers more in this group

See all 148 papers →

potassium sulfate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

sulfate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 22 positive, 1 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

calcium bis(dihydrogenphosphate) · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

sulfur atom · physiology: enzyme activity · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

sulfur atom · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

fertilization · physiology: photosynthesis · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

133 papers: 126 positive, 7 negative or no effect

125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

129 papers more in this group

See all 133 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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.