Paper · 2016 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

Fortified cassava peel compost amendment for Amaranthus: Influence on plant growth, nutrients uptake and on soil nutrient changes

E. A. Makinde; A. W. Salau

9
claims
12
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Nutrient supply through organic sources usually requires fortification for timely and optimum release of plant nutrients to achieve optimum crop performance. A pot experiment was conducted in a screen house to determine the optimum rate of cassava peel compost (CPC) fortification that supports optimum Amaranthus (Amaranthus cruentus L.) plant nutrient contents and residual soil nutrient contents. A compost of cassava peel and poultry manure was applied at 2.5; 5.0 and 7.5 t ha−1each complemented with either 25 or 50 kg nitrogen (N), using nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) 20-10-10 at 2 weeks before sowing Amaranthus. An unfertilized treatment served as control. Seeds were sown in plastic containers with a surface diameter of 24 cm filled with 5 kg soil, with a drain underneath. Seedlings were thinned to 4 plants/pot 2 weeks after planting. Plants were harvested at 5 weeks by ratooning and plant re-growth also harvested after 5 weeks. Soil pH was lower with high rates of 5.0 and 7.5 t ha−1 CPC while the organic matter content was increased with increased CPC rate. Soil N was reduced but reflected in increased plant shoot and root N, with compost application. Soil P was generally increased but was not reflected in plant contents. Soil K contents were reduced and were reflected in increased plant contents. Application of 2.5 t ha−1 CPC, fortified with either 25 or 50 kg N ha−1 gave the optimum Amaranthus shoot nutrient contents with optimum residual soil nutrient contents.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher compost rates lowered soil pH.

Treatment
5.0 and 7.5 t ha−1 CPCe0
Outcome
Soil pHe0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Soil pH was lower with high rates of 5.0 and 7.5 t ha−1 CPC while the organic matter content was increased with increased CPC rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 955–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing compost rate increased soil organic matter content.

Treatment
increased CPC ratee0
Outcome
organic matter contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Soil pH was lower with high rates of 5.0 and 7.5 t ha−1 CPC while the organic matter content was increased with increased CPC rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 955–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost application reduced soil nitrogen.

Treatment
compost applicatione0
Outcome
Soil Ne0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Soil N was reduced but reflected in increased plant shoot and root N, with compost application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1087–1182 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost application increased Amaranthus shoot and root nitrogen.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
compost applicatione0
Outcome
plant shoot and root Ne0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil N was reduced but reflected in increased plant shoot and root N, with compost application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1087–1182 · show in text ↑
t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–55 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil phosphorus generally increased.

Outcome
Soil Pe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Soil P was generally increased but was not reflected in plant contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1183–1254 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increased soil phosphorus was not reflected in plant phosphorus content.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Outcome
plant contentse0
Qualifier
not reflectede0

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil P was generally increased but was not reflected in plant contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1183–1254 · show in text ↑
t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–55 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil potassium content decreased.

Outcome
Soil K contentse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Soil K contents were reduced and were reflected in increased plant contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1331 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant potassium content increased.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Outcome
plant contentse0
Direction
increasede0

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil K contents were reduced and were reflected in increased plant contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1331 · show in text ↑
t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–55 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost at 2.5 t ha−1 fortified with 25 kg N ha−1 gave optimal shoot nutrient and residual soil nutrient contents.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthuse0
Treatment
2.5 t ha−1 CPC, fortified with either 25 or 50 kg N ha−1e0
Outcome
Amaranthus shoot nutrient contentse0
Direction
optimume0

Not reportedComparator

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of 2.5 t ha−1 CPC, fortified with either 25 or 50 kg N ha−1 gave the optimum Amaranthus shoot nutrient contents with optimum residual soil nutrient contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1332–1501 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · nutrient: content · AmaranthusPositive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · AmaranthusPositive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 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.