Abstract
A filed experiment was carried out on a sandy loam soil at a newly reclaimed area of Sahl El-Tina, Galbana Village No.7, North Sinai, Egypt, during a growing summer season (2009) to study the effect of two techniques for management (Raised beds practice compared with traditional system Furrow row) of saline soil under different rates and forms of N-mineral fertilizers on soil chemical properties, growth, yield and yield component. The applied treatments were two cultural practices (Raised beds and Furrow rows) as well as three solid N-mineral fertilizer forms (i.e., Urea, Ammonium Nitrate and Ammonium sulfate which added at rates of 75 and 100% of the recommended dose (120 kg N fed-1). Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator. The obtained results indicated that the soil chemicals properties were improved under Raised beds conditions compared with traditional system (Furrow row), particularly in the root zone. The pH values were slightly reduced from 8.0 to 7.6 and 7.8. Also the electrical conductivity values (EC) were strongly reduced from 7.3 to 3.4 and 4.2 for Raised beds and Furrow row respectively. More or less similar trend was obtained for the soluble ions with the height reduction up to more than 50% approximately, particular for Cl- and Na+ in the maize root zone under Raised beds system. The role of Raised bed was positive for increase the soil content of available N up to 10.4%, but it was negative on values of available K while decreased up to 12.9% under the same conditions. On the other hand, the available N and K were increased relatively under addition of N forms, while, the rats of nitrogen addition was non-significant. The maize plant parameters such as leaves &stalks, grains nutritional status, grain yields, weight of 100 kernels and crude protein were recorded the best values with Raised beds planting as compared with the traditional practice (Furrow row). In general, NUE (Nitrogen use efficiency) values below 60% include an increased risk of nitrogen losses and should be avoided in order to protect the environment at N application rates. Also, these values were increased or closed to level of balance in–and output approximately at low N application rates (90 kg.fed-1) under Raised beds practice technology compared with the traditional system (Furrow row), and the best values for NUE were 74.7 % when the ammonium sulfate addition compared with other N forms Thus, the addition rate of N recommended (120 kg.fed-1) for maize production dose not acceptable to saline studied soil.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds improved soil chemical properties compared with the traditional furrow system in a saline maize field.
- Treatment
- Raised bedse2
- Outcome
- soil chemicals propertiese2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Comparator
- traditional system (Furrow row)e2
- Setting
- newly reclaimed area of Sahl El-Tina, Galbana Village No.7, North Sinai, Egypte1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“A filed experiment was carried out on a sandy loam soil at a newly reclaimed area of Sahl El-Tina, Galbana Village No.7, North Sinai, Egypt”
e2“the soil chemicals properties were improved under Raised beds conditions compared with traditional system (Furrow row), particularly in the root zone”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH values were slightly reduced from 8.0 to 7.6 and 7.8.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e3“The pH values were slightly reduced from 8.0 to 7.6 and 7.8”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds reduced soil electrical conductivity from 7.3 to 3.4, against 4.2 under furrow rows.
- Treatment
- Raised bedse4
- Outcome
- electrical conductivity values (EC)e4
- Direction
- strongly reducede4
- Value
- from 7.3 to 3.4 and 4.2e4
- Comparator
- Furrow rowe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e4“the electrical conductivity values (EC) were strongly reduced from 7.3 to 3.4 and 4.2 for Raised beds and Furrow row respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble ions in the maize root zone were reduced by more than 50% under raised beds, particularly Cl- and Na+.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e5“More or less similar trend was obtained for the soluble ions with the height reduction up to more than 50% approximately, particular for Cl- and Na+ in the maize root zone under Raised beds system”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds increased soil available N in the maize root zone by up to 10.4%.
- Treatment
- Raised bede6
- Outcome
- soil content of available Ne6
- Direction
- increasee6
- Value
- 10.4%e6
- Comparator
- traditional system (Furrow row)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e6“The role of Raised bed was positive for increase the soil content of available N up to 10.4%”
e3“the soil chemicals properties were improved under Raised beds conditions compared with traditional system (Furrow row), particularly in the root zone”
Claim · model-written summary
Raised beds decreased soil available K by up to 12.9%.
- Treatment
- Raised bede6
- Outcome
- available Ke7
- Direction
- decreasede7
- Value
- 12.9%e7
- Comparator
- traditional system (Furrow row)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e6“The role of Raised bed was positive for increase the soil content of available N up to 10.4%”
e7“but it was negative on values of available K while decreased up to 12.9% under the same conditions”
e3“the soil chemicals properties were improved under Raised beds conditions compared with traditional system (Furrow row), particularly in the root zone”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yields, 100-kernel weight and crude protein had their best values under raised bed planting compared with furrow.
- Treatment
- Raised beds plantinge1
- Outcome
- grain yields, weight of 100 kernels and crude proteine1
- Direction
- best valuese1
- Comparator
- traditional practice (Furrow row)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“The maize plant parameters such as leaves &stalks, grains nutritional status, grain yields, weight of 100 kernels and crude protein were recorded the best values with Raised beds planting as compared with the traditional practice (Furrow row)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize leaves and stalks and grain nutritional status had their best values under raised bed planting compared with furrow.
- Treatment
- Raised beds plantinge1
- Outcome
- leaves &stalks, grains nutritional statuse1
- Direction
- best valuese1
- Comparator
- traditional practice (Furrow row)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“The maize plant parameters such as leaves &stalks, grains nutritional status, grain yields, weight of 100 kernels and crude protein were recorded the best values with Raised beds planting as compared with the traditional practice (Furrow row)”
Claim · model-written summary
NUE values below 60% carry an increased risk of nitrogen losses and should be avoided.
- Outcome
- NUE (Nitrogen use efficiency) values below 60%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“NUE (Nitrogen use efficiency) values below 60% include an increased risk of nitrogen losses and should be avoided in order to protect the environment at N application rates”
Claim · model-written summary
At low N rates (90 kg/fed) raised beds kept nitrogen in-and-output balance better than the traditional system.
- Treatment
- low N application rates (90 kg.fed-1)e1
- Outcome
- level of balance in–and outpute1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- traditional system (Furrow row)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“these values were increased or closed to level of balance in–and output approximately at low N application rates (90 kg.fed-1) under Raised beds practice technology compared with the traditional system (Furrow row)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ammonium sulfate gave the best NUE, 74.7%, compared with other N forms.
- Treatment
- the ammonium sulfate additione1
- Outcome
- NUEe1
- Direction
- best valuese1
- Value
- 74.7 %e1
- Comparator
- other N formse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“the best values for NUE were 74.7 % when the ammonium sulfate addition compared with other N forms”
Claim · model-written summary
The recommended N rate of 120 kg/fed for maize is not acceptable for the saline soil studied.
- Outcome
- addition rate of N recommended (120 kg.fed-1)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“the addition rate of N recommended (120 kg.fed-1) for maize production dose not acceptable to saline studied soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Addition of N forms increased available N and K.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“the available N and K were increased relatively under addition of N forms, while, the rats of nitrogen addition was non-significant”
Claim · model-written summary
The rates of nitrogen addition had a non-significant effect.
- Outcome
- rats of nitrogen additione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: source typo "rats" copied as written
Verbatim
e0“Maize (Zea mays L., Th. 321 cv.) was undertaken as plant indicator”
e1“the available N and K were increased relatively under addition of N forms, while, the rats of nitrogen addition was non-significant”
The same questions in other papers
ammonium sulfate · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
78 papers more in this group
See all 82 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.