Paper · 2013 · Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering

MAXIMIZING WHEAT YIELD UNDER N, K AND B FERTILIZATION

E. A. E. Gazia; M. A. Abd EL Aziz

18
claims
35
verbatim quotes
3
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted at Sakha Agricultural Research Station, North Delta, Egypt during two successive growing seasons (2010-2011 and 2011-2012) to study the effect of nitrogen fertilization with and without K and B application on wheat yield in addition to evaluate quantitatively the response of wheat grain yield to fertilizer application using a polynomial quadratic equation. Five N levels ( 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 kg N fed-1) were applied as a main plots, with 2 levels of K ( 0 and 50 kg K2O fed-1) as sub-plot, and B solution at 0.1% concentrationsprayed after 70 days from sowing as sub-sub plots. The cultivated wheat variety was Sakha 69. The main results could be summarized as follows: 1- Increasing N levels up to 90 kg fed-1 led to a significant increase in the grain yield. Also, the grain yield was increased with potassium application in average by 2.5 %. Foliar application of boron resulted in increasing the grain yield in average by 2.48%. 2- The estimated values of the maximum N rate (xmax) were 2.76, 2.83, 2.78 and 2.77 units of N fed-1. (one N unit = 30 kg) for the treatments of N only (A), N with B (B), N with K(C) and N with B and K(D), respectively. The estimated values of maximum wheat grain yield (Ymax) (17.051, 17.586, 17.788 and 18.140 ardab fed-1 for the four treatments, respectively) were increased by applying K and B fertilizers. 3- The economic optimum yield (Yopt) was obtained by applying the economic optimum rates (xopt). The values of xopt were 2.63, 2.70, 2.65 and 2.64 N units fed-1 for the four treatments, respectively. The values of Yopt were 17.03, 17.57, 17.76 and 18.13 ardab fed-1 for the previous mentioned treatments, respectively. The net returns of using N fertilizer were 2612.80, 2753.82, 2766.34 and 2865.10 LE fed-1 for the four treatments, respectively. Hence, it could be concluded that the maximum and optimum wheat grain yield (Ymax and Yopt) were increased by applying K and B fertilizers. 4- Relative efficiency of applied N fertilizer (EX) with different treatments could be arranged in the following descending order: D > C > B > A. The highest efficiency of soil N (exs) was obtained under treatment B. The highest value of soil N (xs) (1.486 unit fed-1) was obtained with A treatment. The contribution of applied N fertilizer increased with increasing N level and the highest value of applied N fertilizer contribution was obtained under D treatment. Also, the contribution of soil N decreased with increasing N application level up to 120 kg fed-1 (N4). The net return due to Boron spraying was 299.8 L.E fed-1. Generally it could be concluded that increasing N level up to 90 kg/fed led to a significant increase in wheat grain yield. The maximum, optimum wheat grain yield (Ymax and Yopt), N use efficiency and the net return were increased by applying K and B fertilizers. Also the contribution of soil N decreased with increasing N application level up to 120 kg fed-1.

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 18

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing N to 90 kg fed-1 significantly increased grain yield.

Treatment
N levels up to 90 kg fed-1e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing N levels up to 90 kg fed-1 led to a significant increase in the grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 717–803 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium application increased grain yield by 2.5% on average.

Treatment
potassium applicatione0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2.5 %e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the grain yield was increased with potassium application in average by 2.5 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 811–887 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar boron increased grain yield by 2.48% on average.

Treatment
Foliar application of borone0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasinge0
Value
2.48%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar application of boron resulted in increasing the grain yield in average by 2.48%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 889–975 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated maximum N rate for N alone was 2.76 units of N fed-1.

Treatment
N only (A)e0
Outcome
maximum N rate (xmax)e0
Value
2.76e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The estimated values of the maximum N rate (xmax) were 2.76, 2.83, 2.78 and 2.77 units of N fed-1. (one N unit = 30 kg) for the treatments of N only (A), N with B (B), N with K(C) and N with B and K(D), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1195 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated maximum N rate with B was 2.83 N units per fed-1.

Treatment
N with B (B)e0
Outcome
maximum N rate (xmax)e0
Value
2.83e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The estimated values of the maximum N rate (xmax) were 2.76, 2.83, 2.78 and 2.77 units of N fed-1. (one N unit = 30 kg) for the treatments of N only (A), N with B (B), N with K(C) and N with B and K(D), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1195 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated maximum N rate with K was 2.78 N units per fed-1.

Treatment
N with K(C)e0
Outcome
maximum N rate (xmax)e0
Value
2.78e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The estimated values of the maximum N rate (xmax) were 2.76, 2.83, 2.78 and 2.77 units of N fed-1. (one N unit = 30 kg) for the treatments of N only (A), N with B (B), N with K(C) and N with B and K(D), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1195 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated maximum N rate with B and K was 2.77 N units per fed-1.

Treatment
N with B and K(D)e0
Outcome
maximum N rate (xmax)e0
Value
2.77e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The estimated values of the maximum N rate (xmax) were 2.76, 2.83, 2.78 and 2.77 units of N fed-1. (one N unit = 30 kg) for the treatments of N only (A), N with B (B), N with K(C) and N with B and K(D), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1195 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated maximum grain yield was 17.051, 17.586, 17.788 and 18.140 ardab fed-1 for A through D respectively.

Outcome
maximum wheat grain yield (Ymax)e0
Direction
increasede0
Value
17.051, 17.586, 17.788 and 18.140 ardab fed-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The estimated values of maximum wheat grain yield (Ymax) (17.051, 17.586, 17.788 and 18.140 ardab fed-1 for the four treatments, respectively) were increased by applying K and B fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1386 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Economic optimum N rates were 2.63, 2.70, 2.65 and 2.64 N units fed-1 across A through D.

Outcome
xopte0
Value
2.63, 2.70, 2.65 and 2.64 N units fed-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The values of xopt were 2.63, 2.70, 2.65 and 2.64 N units fed-1 for the four treatments, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1485–1586 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Economic optimum yields were 17.03, 17.57, 17.76 and 18.13 ardab fed-1 across A through D.

Outcome
Yopte0
Value
17.03, 17.57, 17.76 and 18.13 ardab fed-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The values of Yopt were 17.03, 17.57, 17.76 and 18.13 ardab fed-1 for the previous mentioned treatments, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1588–1705 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Net returns from N were 2612.80, 2753.82, 2766.34 and 2865.10 LE fed-1 across A through D.

Outcome
net returns of using N fertilizere0
Value
2612.80, 2753.82, 2766.34 and 2865.10 LE fed-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The net returns of using N fertilizer were 2612.80, 2753.82, 2766.34 and 2865.10 LE fed-1 for the four treatments, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1707–1834 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Relative efficiency of applied N ranked D above C above B above A.

Outcome
Relative efficiency of applied N fertilizer (EX)e0
Direction
descending ordere0
Value
D > C > B > Ae0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Relative efficiency of applied N fertilizer (EX) with different treatments could be arranged in the following descending order: D > C > B > A”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1979–2120 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil N efficiency was highest under treatment B.

Treatment
treatment Be0
Outcome
efficiency of soil N (exs)e0
Direction
higheste0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest efficiency of soil N (exs) was obtained under treatment B”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2122–2191 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil N amount was highest under A at 1.486 unit fed-1.

Treatment
A treatmente0
Outcome
soil N (xs)e0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1.486 unit fed-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest value of soil N (xs) (1.486 unit fed-1) was obtained with A treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2193–2274 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applied N contribution increased with N level.

Treatment
N levele0
Outcome
contribution of applied N fertilizere0
Direction
increasede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The contribution of applied N fertilizer increased with increasing N level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2276–2350 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applied N contribution was greatest under D.

Treatment
D treatmente0
Outcome
applied N fertilizer contributione0
Direction
higheste0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest value of applied N fertilizer contribution was obtained under D treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2355–2440 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil N contribution fell with N application up to 120 kg fed-1.

Treatment
N application level up to 120 kg fed-1 (N4)e0
Outcome
contribution of soil Ne0
Direction
decreasede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the contribution of soil N decreased with increasing N application level up to 120 kg fed-1 (N4)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2448–2544 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron spraying yielded net return of 299.8 L.E fed-1.

Treatment
Boron sprayinge0
Outcome
net returne0
Value
299.8 L.E fed-1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The net return due to Boron spraying was 299.8 L.E fed-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2546–2602 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 11–16 · show in text ↑

boron atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

76 papers: 62 positive, 14 negative or no effect

61 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

72 papers more in this group

See all 76 papers →

potassium · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

257 papers: 227 positive, 30 negative or no effect

226 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

253 papers more in this group

See all 257 papers →

application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

794 papers in the same direction as this paper · 75 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

873 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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.