Paper · 2012 · Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering

RETIONALIZATION OF MINERAL POTASSIUM FERTILIZER BY USING BIODESOLVING POTASSIUM AND ITS EFFECT ON YIELD AND QUALITY POTATOS.

M. M. Elkholy; S. A. El-Tohamy; Wafaa A. Hafez

9
claims
20
verbatim quotes
3
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Potassium is one of the three essential elements viz., NPK needed in large quantities for the growth and reproduction of the plants and it plays many vital roles in plant nutrition. The crop production in Egypt relies completely on imports to meet its annual requirement of potash fertilizers besides; the high cost of conventional, water soluble K fertilizers constrain their use by most of the farmers in the country. In order to reduce the dependence on imported potash, feldspar a potash mineral, contains 10.5 % K2O and therefore it could be a potential K-source for crop production. Novel approaches are needed to unlock K from the silicate structure of this mineral in order to render K more available for plant nutrition. A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans) as well as fungus (Penicillium sp.) were used as bio-inoculants. These studies were undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of bacterial and fungus inoculation in combination with two levels of feldspar and mineral potassium fertilizer (full recommended dose and half recommended dose) on K-releasing capacity as well as potato yield. To achieve this target, bio-inoculated potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum, L.) were sown on calcareous soil at Nubaria Agriculture Research Station. The obtained data showed that inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteria as biofertilizer in the presence of different potassium sources increased all examined potato tuber yield, tuber content of carbohydrate and protein, moreover soil available and plant (shoot and tubers) content of N, P , K ,Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu compared to the sole use of K sources. On the other hand, the highest tubers yield ( 15.62 and 15.33 ton fed.-1) were obtained when mineral fertilizer and feldspar were inoculated with bacteria. The apparent nutrient recovery and partial factor productivity were significantly enhanced by inoculated feldspar with Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB) than other treatments. However, the use of feldspar in combination with biofertilizers may be more useful and economically.

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

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation with potassium sources increased potato tuber yield compared with potassium sources alone.

Treatment
inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteriae0
Interactor
Bacillus circulanse1symbiont
Outcome
potato tuber yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
sole use of K sourcese0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteria as biofertilizer in the presence of different potassium sources increased all examined potato tuber yield, tuber content of carbohydrate and protein, moreover soil available and plant (shoot and tubers) content of N, P , K ,Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu compared to the sole use of K sources.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1631 · show in text ↑
e1

“A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation increased potato tuber carbohydrate and protein content compared with potassium sources alone.

Treatment
inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteriae0
Interactor
Bacillus circulanse1symbiont
Outcome
tuber content of carbohydrate and proteine0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
sole use of K sourcese0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteria as biofertilizer in the presence of different potassium sources increased all examined potato tuber yield, tuber content of carbohydrate and protein, moreover soil available and plant (shoot and tubers) content of N, P , K ,Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu compared to the sole use of K sources.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1631 · show in text ↑
e1

“A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation increased soil available N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu compared with potassium sources alone.

Treatment
inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteriae0
Interactor
Bacillus circulanse1symbiont
Outcome
soil availablee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
sole use of K sourcese0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteria as biofertilizer in the presence of different potassium sources increased all examined potato tuber yield, tuber content of carbohydrate and protein, moreover soil available and plant (shoot and tubers) content of N, P , K ,Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu compared to the sole use of K sources.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1631 · show in text ↑
e1

“A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial inoculation increased potato shoot and tuber N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu content compared with potassium sources alone.

Treatment
inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteriae0
Interactor
Bacillus circulanse1symbiont
Outcome
plant (shoot and tubers) content of N, P , K ,Fe, Mn, Zn and Cue0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
sole use of K sourcese0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“inoculation with silicate dissolving bacteria as biofertilizer in the presence of different potassium sources increased all examined potato tuber yield, tuber content of carbohydrate and protein, moreover soil available and plant (shoot and tubers) content of N, P , K ,Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu compared to the sole use of K sources.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1631 · show in text ↑
e1

“A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated mineral fertilizer produced a highest potato tuber yield of 15.62 ton fed.-1.

Treatment
mineral fertilizere0
Interactor
Bacillus circulanse2symbiont
Outcome
tubers yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
15.62e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest tubers yield ( 15.62 and 15.33 ton fed.-1) were obtained when mineral fertilizer and feldspar were inoculated with bacteria.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1651–1787 · show in text ↑
e1

“potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum, L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1204 · show in text ↑
e2

“A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated feldspar produced a highest potato tuber yield of 15.33 ton fed.-1.

Treatment
feldspare0
Interactor
Bacillus circulanse2symbiont
Outcome
tubers yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
15.33 ton fed.-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest tubers yield ( 15.62 and 15.33 ton fed.-1) were obtained when mineral fertilizer and feldspar were inoculated with bacteria.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1651–1787 · show in text ↑
e1

“potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum, L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1204 · show in text ↑
e2

“A strain of silicate dissolving bacteria (Bacillus circulans)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated feldspar significantly enhanced apparent nutrient recovery relative to other treatments.

Treatment
inoculated feldspar with Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB)e0
Interactor
Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB)e0symbiont
Outcome
apparent nutrient recoverye0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The apparent nutrient recovery and partial factor productivity were significantly enhanced by inoculated feldspar with Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB) than other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1788–1964 · show in text ↑
e1

“potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum, L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1204 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated feldspar significantly enhanced partial factor productivity relative to other treatments.

Treatment
inoculated feldspar with Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB)e0
Interactor
Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB)e0symbiont
Outcome
partial factor productivitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The apparent nutrient recovery and partial factor productivity were significantly enhanced by inoculated feldspar with Silicate Dissolving Bacteria (SDB) than other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1788–1964 · show in text ↑
e1

“potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum, L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1204 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors considered feldspar with biofertilizers potentially more useful and economical.

Outcome
use of feldspar in combination with biofertilizerse0
Qualifier
may be more useful and economicallye0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the use of feldspar in combination with biofertilizers may be more useful and economically.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1974–2065 · show in text ↑
e1

“potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum, L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1204 · show in text ↑

silicate(4-) · quality: protein · Solanum tuberosum (potato)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 →

silicate(4-) · molecular: metabolites · Solanum tuberosum (potato)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 →

feldspar · nutrient: content · Solanum tuberosum (potato)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 →

silicate(4-) · nutrient: content · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

feldspar · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

silicate(4-) · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 16 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

inoculation · nutrient: content · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

32 papers: 30 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

8 of 11 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.