Abstract
During a five year period (2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015) research was carried out with spring wheat on a Bathihypogleyi-Calc(ar)ic Luvisol (LVk-gld-w) with predominant silt loam on clay loam. The main aim was to establish how different foliar fertilizers affect spring wheat when the optimum nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and sulphur (S) rates had been applied during the main fertilisation. The soil was well-drained and very high in plant-available phosphorus (P 2 O 5 ) and potassium (K 2 O), pH KCl 6.4-7.4. Each year, depending on agrochemical analyses done in spring, all treatments were applied with the same rates of mineral fertilizers. The experiments established that the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1 ) or microelements (Tradecorp Cu 0.8 kg ha -1 , Tradecorp Mn 1.0 kg ha -1 and Tradecorp Zn 1.0 kg ha -1 ) increased grain yield only in one year out of five, and ammonium sulphate (15.0 kg ha -1 ) and urea (6.7 kg ha -1 ) in two years. The average data of five years indicated that the foliar fertilisers used did not increase grain and straw yield statistically significantly and did not have significant influence on the content of crude protein and starch in grain.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar amino acids with amide nitrogen increased grain yield of spring wheat in only one year out of five.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Organ / stage
- BBCH 29-30 stagee0
- Treatment
- amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- only in one year out of fivee2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)”
e2“increased grain yield only in one year out of five, and ammonium sulphate (15.0 kg ha -1 ) and urea (6.7 kg ha -1 ) in two years”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar microelements increased grain yield of spring wheat in only one year out of five.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- BBCH 29-30 stagee0
- Treatment
- microelements (Tradecorp Cu 0.8 kg ha -1 , Tradecorp Mn 1.0 kg ha -1 and Tradecorp Zn 1.0 kg ha -1 )e1
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- only in one year out of fivee2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)”
e1“or microelements (Tradecorp Cu 0.8 kg ha -1 , Tradecorp Mn 1.0 kg ha -1 and Tradecorp Zn 1.0 kg ha -1 )”
e2“increased grain yield only in one year out of five, and ammonium sulphate (15.0 kg ha -1 ) and urea (6.7 kg ha -1 ) in two years”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar ammonium sulphate increased grain yield of spring wheat in two years.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- BBCH 29-30 stagee0
- Treatment
- ammonium sulphate (15.0 kg ha -1 )e2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in two yearse2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)”
e2“increased grain yield only in one year out of five, and ammonium sulphate (15.0 kg ha -1 ) and urea (6.7 kg ha -1 ) in two years”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar urea increased grain yield of spring wheat in two years.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Organ / stage
- BBCH 29-30 stagee0
- Treatment
- urea (6.7 kg ha -1 )e2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in two yearse2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)”
e2“increased grain yield only in one year out of five, and ammonium sulphate (15.0 kg ha -1 ) and urea (6.7 kg ha -1 ) in two years”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilisers did not increase grain and straw yield of spring wheat statistically significantly over five years.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- foliar fertiliserse3
- Outcome
- grain and straw yielde3
- Direction
- did not increasee3
- Qualifier
- average data of five yearse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)”
e3“The average data of five years indicated that the foliar fertilisers used did not increase grain and straw yield statistically significantly”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilisers did not significantly influence crude protein and starch content of spring wheat grain.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- foliar fertiliserse3
- Outcome
- content of crude protein and starch in graine4
- Direction
- did not have significant influencee4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar nutrition of spring wheat at the BBCH 29-30 stage with amino acids with amide nitrogen (Delfan 2.0 l ha -1)”
e3“The average data of five years indicated that the foliar fertilisers used did not increase grain and straw yield statistically significantly”
e4“did not have significant influence on the content of crude protein and starch in grain”
The same questions in other papers
ammonium sulfate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →manganese atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →copper atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →zinc atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
455 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
507 papers more in this group
See all 511 papers →amide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
application · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 110 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
121 papers more in this group
See all 125 papers →fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 501 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
562 papers more in this group
See all 566 papers →application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 795 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
873 papers more in this group
See all 877 papers →8 of 10 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.