Paper · 2016 · Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo

Corn Yield and Foliar Diagnosis Affected by Nitrogen Fertilization and Inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense

Fernando Shintate Galindo; Marcelo Carvalho Minhoto Teixeira Filho; Salatiér Buzetti; et al.

10
claims
27
verbatim quotes
90
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

ABSTRACT The biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) process in grasses is caused by diazotrophic bacteria, particularly Azospirillum brasilense. However, studies are lacking on BNF efficiency to define how much mineral nitrogen (N) can be applied to achieve more sustainable high yields. Furthermore, there should be an analysis of whether urea with the urease enzyme inhibitor NBPT is less harmful, benefiting BNF in grasses. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of N sources and N rates associated with inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense regarding foliar diagnosis and leaf chlorophyll index (LCI), agronomic efficiency (AE), and corn grain yield in the Cerrado (Brazilian tropical savanna) region. The experiment was conducted in a no-tillage system in a Latossolo Vermelho Distroférrico (Oxisol). A randomized block experimental design was used with four replications in a 2 × 5 × 2 factorial arrangement as follows: two N sources - urea and Super N, urea with urease enzyme inhibitor NBPT [N - (n-butyl thiophosphoric triamide)]; five N rates (0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 kg ha-1) applied in topdressing; and two seed inoculation treatments, one with and one without A. brasilense. N rate positively influenced the LCI and concentrations of N, S, and Mn in leaves, and may increase the concentrations of P, Cu, and Fe; however, higher N rates can reduce AE. The N sources had similar effects, and therefore urea is recommended for N fertilization. Inoculation with A. brasilense decreased leaf concentration of Fe and increased LCI, leaf concentration of P, AE, and corn grain yield; the use of this diazotrophic bacterium is therefore viable even when high rates of N are applied.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher N rates increased leaf chlorophyll index and N, S, and Mn concentrations.

Treatment
N ratee0
Outcome
LCI and concentrations of N, S, and Mn in leavese0
Direction
positively influencede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N rate positively influenced the LCI and concentrations of N, S, and Mn in leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1285 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher N rates may increase leaf P, Cu, and Fe concentrations.

Treatment
N ratee0
Outcome
concentrations of P, Cu, and Fee0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“N rate positively influenced the LCI and concentrations of N, S, and Mn in leaves, and may increase the concentrations of P, Cu, and Fe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1339 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher N rates can reduce agronomic efficiency.

Treatment
higher N ratese0
Outcome
AEe0
Direction
reducee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“higher N rates can reduce AE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1350–1378 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two N sources had similar effects.

Treatment
N sourcese0
Outcome
similar effectse0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
urea and Super Ne1

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The N sources had similar effects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1380–1413 · show in text ↑
e1

“urea and Super N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–973 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommended urea for nitrogen fertilization.

Outcome
urea is recommended for N fertilizatione0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“urea is recommended for N fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1429–1468 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azospirillum inoculation decreased leaf Fe concentration.

Treatment
Inoculation with A. brasilensee0
Interactor
A. brasilenseAzospirillum brasilensee0symbiont
Outcome
leaf concentration of Fee0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
without A. brasilensee2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation with A. brasilense decreased leaf concentration of Fe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1470–1535 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e2

“one with and one without A. brasilense”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1202 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azospirillum inoculation increased LCI and leaf P concentration.

Treatment
Inoculation with A. brasilensee1
Interactor
A. brasilenseAzospirillum brasilensee1symbiont
Outcome
LCI, leaf concentration of Pe0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
without A. brasilensee2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased LCI, leaf concentration of P”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1578 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation with A. brasilense decreased leaf concentration of Fe and increased LCI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1470–1553 · show in text ↑
e2

“one with and one without A. brasilense”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1202 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azospirillum inoculation increased agronomic efficiency.

Treatment
Inoculation with A. brasilensee1
Interactor
A. brasilenseAzospirillum brasilensee1symbiont
Outcome
AEe0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
without A. brasilensee2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased LCI, leaf concentration of P, AE, and corn grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1604 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation with A. brasilense decreased leaf concentration of Fe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1470–1535 · show in text ↑
e2

“one with and one without A. brasilense”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1202 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azospirillum inoculation increased corn grain yield.

Treatment
Inoculation with A. brasilensee1
Interactor
A. brasilenseAzospirillum brasilensee1symbiont
Outcome
corn grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
without A. brasilensee2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased LCI, leaf concentration of P, AE, and corn grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1604 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation with A. brasilense decreased leaf concentration of Fe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1470–1535 · show in text ↑
e2

“one with and one without A. brasilense”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1202 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors considered Azospirillum inoculation viable even with high N rates.

Interactor
A. brasilenseAzospirillum brasilensee2symbiont
Outcome
use of this diazotrophic bacterium is therefore viable even when high rates of N are appliede0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilense · InteractorCristiane Colodel · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“use of this diazotrophic bacterium is therefore viable even when high rates of N are applied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1610–1702 · show in text ↑
e1

“AE, and corn grain yield; the use of this diazotrophic bacterium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1580–1644 · show in text ↑
e2

“Inoculation with A. brasilense decreased leaf concentration of Fe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1470–1535 · show in text ↑

Azospirillum brasilense · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

Azospirillum brasilense · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

53 papers: 42 positive, 11 negative or no effect

41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

49 papers more in this group

See all 53 papers →

Azospirillum brasilense · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)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 →

inoculation · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

95 papers: 85 positive, 10 negative or no effect

84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

91 papers more in this group

See all 95 papers →

nitrogen · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

126 papers: 112 positive, 14 negative or no effect

111 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

122 papers more in this group

See all 126 papers →

nitrogen · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

194 papers: 142 positive, 52 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 142 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

190 papers more in this group

See all 194 papers →

nitrogen · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

489 papers: 403 positive, 86 negative or no effect

402 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

485 papers more in this group

See all 489 papers →

inoculation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

538 papers: 479 positive, 59 negative or no effect

478 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

534 papers more in this group

See all 538 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.