Abstract
A 2-year field experiment was conducted during the rainy seasons (JulyOctober) of 2012 and 2013 on a non- calcareous alkaline sandy clay loam soil, to (i) assess the effect of omitted nutrients on growth, yield, water pro- ductivity (WP) and profitability of maize (Zea mays L.) crop, and (ii) develop guidelines for the use of soil test crop response (STCR) approach and omission plots, in site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) for targeted and sustained yield of maize in the maize (Zea mays L.)wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.) emend. Fiori & Paol.] cropping system. The experiment comprised 15 treatments, involving application of N (-PKZn), NP (-KZn), NPK (-Zn) and NPZn (-K) to both maize and wheat crops, to maize and to wheat crop only, absolute control (no nutrient applied), recommended rate of nutrients (120, 60, 40, 5.5 kg/ha N, P, K, Zn) and STCR-based application of nutrients (200, 100, 55, 4 kg/ha N, P, K, Zn). The experiment was set in a randomized complete-block design with 3 replications, in fixed plots. Growth and yield attributes were significantly influenced by nutrient-omission treatments and their values were higher when nutrients were applied according to STCR approach. The STCR-based nutrient applica- tion increased dry-matter production and grain yield by 5.9 and 5.7%, respectively over balanced fertilization (rec- ommended doses of NPKZn). Omission of P and K resulted in 9 and 9.7% reduction, respectively, in grain yield of maize. The yield reduction caused by Zn omission was about 3% only. On an average, STCR-based fertilization enhanced water productivity (WP) by over 6.2% compared to balanced fertilization with recommended doses of nutrients. Omission of K in both maize and wheat crops reduced WP by 9.3% compared to recommended doses of NPKZn-applied plot. The highest gross profit of 70,425/ha was also realized from STCR-based nutrient appli- cation.
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
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient application gave higher growth and yield attributes than nutrient omission treatments.
- Treatment
- STCR approache0
- Outcome
- Growth and yield attributese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- nutrient-omission treatmentse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth and yield attributes were significantly influenced by nutrient-omission treatments and their values were higher when nutrients were applied according to STCR approach”
e1“Growth and yield attributes were significantly influenced by nutrient-omission treatments and their values were higher when nutrients were applied according to STCR approach”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR fertilization increased maize dry matter production by 5.9% over recommended balanced fertilizer.
- Treatment
- STCR-based nutrient applica- tione0
- Outcome
- dry-matter productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.9e0
- Comparator
- balanced fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“STCR-based nutrient applica- tion increased dry-matter production and grain yield by 5.9 and 5.7%, respectively over balanced fertilization (rec- ommended doses of NPKZn)”
e1“STCR-based nutrient applica- tion increased dry-matter production and grain yield by 5.9 and 5.7%, respectively over balanced fertilization (rec- ommended doses of NPKZn)”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR fertilization increased maize grain yield by 5.7% over recommended balanced fertilizer.
- Treatment
- STCR-based nutrient applica- tione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.7%e0
- Comparator
- balanced fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“STCR-based nutrient applica- tion increased dry-matter production and grain yield by 5.9 and 5.7%, respectively over balanced fertilization”
e1“STCR-based nutrient applica- tion increased dry-matter production and grain yield by 5.9 and 5.7%, respectively over balanced fertilization”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus omission reduced maize grain yield by 9%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Omission of P and K resulted in 9 and 9.7% reduction, respectively, in grain yield of maize”
e1“Omission of P and K resulted in 9 and 9.7% reduction, respectively, in grain yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium omission reduced maize grain yield by 9.7%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Omission of P and K resulted in 9 and 9.7% reduction, respectively, in grain yield of maize”
e1“Omission of P and K resulted in 9 and 9.7% reduction, respectively, in grain yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Zinc omission reduced yield by about 3%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield reduction caused by Zn omission was about 3% only”
e1“The yield reduction caused by Zn omission was about 3% only”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR fertilization enhanced water productivity by more than 6.2% over balanced fertilization.
- Treatment
- STCR-based fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 6.2%e0
- Comparator
- balanced fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“STCR-based fertilization enhanced water productivity (WP) by over 6.2% compared to balanced fertilization with recommended doses of nutrients”
e1“STCR-based fertilization enhanced water productivity (WP) by over 6.2% compared to balanced fertilization with recommended doses of nutrients”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium omission in both crops reduced maize water productivity by 9.3%.
- Treatment
- Omission of K in both maize and wheat cropse0
- Outcome
- WPe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 9.3%e0
- Comparator
- recommended doses of NPKZn-applied plote0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Omission of K in both maize and wheat crops reduced WP by 9.3% compared to recommended doses of NPKZn-applied plot”
e1“Omission of K in both maize and wheat crops reduced WP by 9.3% compared to recommended doses of NPKZn-applied plot”
Claim · model-written summary
STCR nutrient application yielded the highest gross profit, 70,425/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest gross profit of 70,425/ha was also realized from STCR-based nutrient appli- cation”
e1“The highest gross profit of 70,425/ha was also realized from STCR-based nutrient appli- cation”
t0“maize (Zea mays)”
The same questions in other papers
zinc atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
390 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.
- positive
- negative
- negative
437 papers more in this group
See all 441 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
82 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →potassium · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
290 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
316 papers more in this group
See all 320 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.