Paper · 2018 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Effect of Site Specific Nutrient Management on the Performance of Bt Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and Nutrient Dynamics

Vinayak Hosamani; B.M. Chittapur; Mall ikarjun; et al.

5
claims
14
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

The field experiment on cotton productivity and leaf reddening as influenced by nutrition management for targeted yield was conducted during growing seasons of 2014-15 and 2015-16 at College of Agriculture Farm, Raichur, Karnataka on medium deep black soil under irrigation. Three yield targets (3, 4 and 5 t kapas yield ha-1) based site specific nutrient management (SSNM) along with four leaf reddening management (LRM) treatments (S1 - Vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha-1 in seed line, S2 - S1 + MgSO4 10 kg ha-1 in seed line, S3 - S1 + MgSO4 25 kg ha-1 in seed line, and S4 - MgSO4 25 kg ha-1 in seed line + foliar nutrition of 1% MgSO4 +19:19:19 + 1% KNO3 trice during flowering, boll development and boll bursting stages) besides recommended control were tested using RCBD. Plloed data on the experimental results revealed that SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4) recorded significantly higher NUE (14.30 on pooled basis), PUE (60.81 on pooled basis), KUE (31.37 on pooled basis), had higher IPUE (115.0 on pooled basis) and IKUE values (24.6 to 24.7 on pooled basis).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

SSNM for a 5 t ha-1 target plus S4 gave significantly higher NUE of 14.30.

Treatment
SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4)e0
Outcome
NUEe0
Direction
highere0
Value
14.30e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4) recorded significantly higher NUE (14.30 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1044 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–75 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The same management gave significantly higher PUE of 60.81.

Treatment
S4e1
Outcome
PUEe0
Direction
highere1
Value
60.81e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“PUE (60.81 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1046–1073 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–75 · show in text ↑
e1

“SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4) recorded significantly higher NUE (14.30 on pooled basis), PUE (60.81 on pooled basis), KUE (31.37 on pooled basis), had higher IPUE (115.0 on pooled basis) and IKUE values (24.6 to 24.7 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1190 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The same management gave significantly higher KUE of 31.37.

Treatment
S4e1
Outcome
KUEe0
Direction
highere1
Value
31.37e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“KUE (31.37 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1102 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–75 · show in text ↑
e1

“SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4) recorded significantly higher NUE (14.30 on pooled basis), PUE (60.81 on pooled basis), KUE (31.37 on pooled basis), had higher IPUE (115.0 on pooled basis) and IKUE values (24.6 to 24.7 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1190 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The same management gave higher IPUE of 115.0.

Treatment
S4e1
Outcome
IPUEe0
Direction
highere0
Value
115.0e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“had higher IPUE (115.0 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1104–1143 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–75 · show in text ↑
e1

“SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4) recorded significantly higher NUE (14.30 on pooled basis), PUE (60.81 on pooled basis), KUE (31.37 on pooled basis), had higher IPUE (115.0 on pooled basis) and IKUE values (24.6 to 24.7 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1190 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The same management gave higher IKUE of 24.6 to 24.7.

Treatment
S4e1
Outcome
IKUE valuese0
Direction
highere1
Value
24.6 to 24.7e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“IKUE values (24.6 to 24.7 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1148–1190 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–75 · show in text ↑
e1

“SSNM for 5 t ha-1 yield target and supplementary nutrition of MgSO4 both to soil and to foliage and foliar application of major nutrients (19:19:19 and KNO3) (S4) recorded significantly higher NUE (14.30 on pooled basis), PUE (60.81 on pooled basis), KUE (31.37 on pooled basis), had higher IPUE (115.0 on pooled basis) and IKUE values (24.6 to 24.7 on pooled basis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–1190 · show in text ↑

application · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive 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. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 27 positive, 3 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 papers →

climate site · nutrient: efficiency · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.