Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at Research Farm of A.S. College, Lakhaoti, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh during 2005–07 to “study on nutrient management in lentil and its residual effect on subsequent fodder maize" The experiment was laid out in a split plot design keeping four treatments of inorganic fertilizers in main plots and four treatments of biofertilizers in sub-plots with three replications. The total number of treatments was 16 and total number of plots was 48. The gross plot size was 15m2 (5 × 3m). Application of 40 kg P2O5 through SSP + 5 kg Zn produced significantly taller plants of maize as compared to remaining treatments of fertilizer (40 kg P2O5 through RP and 40 kg P2O5 through RP + 5 kg Z) and control at both the stages of crop growth during both the seasons except that in 2005–06, where no significant effect was noted between 40 kg P2O5 through RP + 5 kg Zn and 40 kg P2O5 through SSP + 5 kg Zn. This might be due to better growth and fodder yield of maize resulted by enhanced availability of N and P due to enrichment of available N and P in soil by preceding lentil crop. Application of 40 kg P2O5 through RP and SSP + 5 kg Zn being at par produced markedly more fodder yield/plant over the application of 40 kg P2O5 through RP alone and no fertilizer application during both the seasons. Similar trend was observed in respect of dry matter yield/plant during both the years of investigation. However Dual application of Rhizobium and VAM fungi registered significant increase 6.00 and 8.00 respectively in fodder and dry matter yield/ha compared to VAM fungi inoculation during 2005–06 and the corresponding increase during 2006–07 were 8.00 and 4.00 VAM fungi also recorded increase 9.00 and 9.00% in dry fodder and dry matter yield/ha during 2005–06 and corresponding increase during 2006–07 were 11.00 and 10.00% over no inoculation. The differences in respect of dry matter yield/ha between Rhizobium and VAM fungi inoculation was not marked during 2006–07.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
SSP phosphorus plus zinc significantly increased maize height relative to the named fertilizer alternatives and control, except for one 2005–06 comparison.
- Treatment
- 40 kg P2O5 through SSP + 5 kg Zne0
- Outcome
- taller plantse0
- Direction
- tallere0
- Comparator
- controle0
- Setting
- 2005–06e0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 40 kg P2O5 through SSP + 5 kg Zn produced significantly taller plants of maize as compared to remaining treatments of fertilizer (40 kg P2O5 through RP and 40 kg P2O5 through RP + 5 kg Z) and control at both the stages of crop growth during both the seasons except that in 2005–06, where no significant effect was noted between 40 kg P2O5 through RP + 5 kg Zn and 40 kg P2O5 through SSP + 5 kg Zn.”
Claim · model-written summary
RP and SSP plus zinc treatments yielded more fodder per plant than RP alone and no fertilizer.
- Treatment
- 40 kg P2O5 through RP and SSP + 5 kg Zne0
- Outcome
- fodder yield/plante0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- 40 kg P2O5 through RP alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of 40 kg P2O5 through RP and SSP + 5 kg Zn being at par produced markedly more fodder yield/plant over the application of 40 kg P2O5 through RP alone and no fertilizer application during both the seasons.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter yield per plant followed the same treatment pattern in both years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar trend was observed in respect of dry matter yield/plant during both the years of investigation.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dual Rhizobium and VAM inoculation significantly increased fodder yield per hectare versus VAM alone by 6.00 in 2005–06.
- Treatment
- Dual application of Rhizobium and VAM fungie0
- Outcome
- foddere0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 6.00e0
- Comparator
- VAM fungi inoculatione0
RhizobiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dual application of Rhizobium and VAM fungi registered significant increase 6.00 and 8.00 respectively in fodder and dry matter yield/ha compared to VAM fungi inoculation during 2005–06”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dual inoculation significantly increased dry matter yield per hectare versus VAM alone by 8.00 in 2005–06.
- Treatment
- Dual application of Rhizobium and VAM fungie0
- Outcome
- dry matter yield/hae0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 8.00e0
- Comparator
- VAM fungi inoculatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dual application of Rhizobium and VAM fungi registered significant increase 6.00 and 8.00 respectively in fodder and dry matter yield/ha compared to VAM fungi inoculation during 2005–06”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006–07 dual inoculation increased fodder yield by 8.00 versus VAM alone.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the corresponding increase during 2006–07 were 8.00 and 4.00 VAM fungi”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006–07 dual inoculation increased dry matter yield by 4.00 versus VAM alone.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the corresponding increase during 2006–07 were 8.00 and 4.00 VAM fungi”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM inoculation raised dry fodder yield per hectare by 9.00% in 2005–06 versus no inoculation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“VAM fungi also recorded increase 9.00 and 9.00% in dry fodder and dry matter yield/ha during 2005–06”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM inoculation raised dry matter yield per hectare by 9.00% in 2005–06.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“VAM fungi also recorded increase 9.00 and 9.00% in dry fodder and dry matter yield/ha during 2005–06”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM inoculation raised dry fodder yield per hectare by 11.00 in 2006–07.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“corresponding increase during 2006–07 were 11.00 and 10.00% over no inoculation.”
t0“maize”
e1“VAM fungi also recorded increase”
Claim · model-written summary
VAM inoculation raised dry matter yield per hectare by 10.00% in 2006–07.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“corresponding increase during 2006–07 were 11.00 and 10.00% over no inoculation.”
t0“maize”
e1“VAM fungi also recorded increase”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobium and VAM inoculation did not differ markedly in dry matter yield per hectare in 2006–07.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The differences in respect of dry matter yield/ha between Rhizobium and VAM fungi inoculation was not marked during 2006–07.”
t0“maize”
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
- negative
- negative
- no effect
437 papers more in this group
See all 441 papers →Rhizobium · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →mycorrhiza · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 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.