Paper · 2020 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

Effect of long-term application of inorganic fertilizers, farm yard manure and lime on wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) productivity, quality and nutrient content in an acid alfisol

Neha Chauhan; N. K. Sankhyan; R. P. Sharma; et al.

8
claims
20
verbatim quotes
27
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effect of long-term addition of fertilizers and amendments on productivity, quality and nutrient content of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in an acid Alfisol was evaluated in field experiment at the research farm of the Department of Soil Science, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (CSKHPKV) Palampur, Himachal Pradesh (India). The Long-Term Fertilizer Experiment was initiated during 1972 in randomized block design (RBD) with 11 treatments which were replicated three times. The soil of the experimental area was silt loam and classified taxonomically as “Typic Hapludalf”. The highest productivity of wheat (2822 kg ha−1) was recorded in the treatment comprising the recommended dose of fertilizer along with farmyard manure (FYM) @ 10t ha−1 and was statistically comparable with 100% NPK + lime (2589 kg ha−1). Continuous application of nitrogen (N) alone through urea (100%) in an acid alfisol has resulted in zero yield of wheat. Application of FYM and lime along with recommended doses of fertilizers improved all the crop quality parameters viz. crude protein, gluten, ash, fat, fiber and carbohydrate as compared to control and imbalanced fertilization for the last 45 years led to decline in crop quality parameters. Nutrient content in wheat grain i.e., phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe) content was also the highest in FYM amended treatment and lowest in control. Whereas, calcium (Ca) content was the highest in lime amended plot and the lowest in control.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat productivity was highest (2822 kg/ha) under the recommended fertilizer dose plus FYM at 10 t/ha in the long-term field experiment.

Treatment
recommended dose of fertilizer along with farmyard manure (FYM) @ 10t ha−1e0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2822 kg ha−1e0
Setting
Palampur, Himachal Pradesh (India)e2

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest productivity of wheat (2822 kg ha−1) was recorded in the treatment comprising the recommended dose of fertilizer along with farmyard manure (FYM) @ 10t ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–775 · show in text ↑
e2

“Palampur, Himachal Pradesh (India)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–357 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat productivity under the recommended fertilizer plus FYM was statistically comparable to 100% NPK + lime (2589 kg/ha).

Treatment
recommended dose of fertilizer along with farmyard manure (FYM) @ 10t ha−1e0
Outcome
productivitye0
Direction
comparablee1
Value
2589 kg ha−1e1
Comparator
100% NPK + limee1

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest productivity of wheat (2822 kg ha−1) was recorded in the treatment comprising the recommended dose of fertilizer along with farmyard manure (FYM) @ 10t ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–775 · show in text ↑
e1

“was statistically comparable with 100% NPK + lime (2589 kg ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–844 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous urea nitrogen alone (100%) in an acid Alfisol resulted in zero wheat yield.

Treatment
Continuous application of nitrogen (N) alone through urea (100%)e3
Outcome
yielde3
Direction
decreaseinferrede3
Value
zeroe3
Setting
acid alfisole3

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e3

“Continuous application of nitrogen (N) alone through urea (100%) in an acid alfisol has resulted in zero yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 846–965 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

FYM and lime with recommended fertilizers improved crude protein, gluten and ash compared with control and imbalanced fertilization.

Treatment
Application of FYM and lime along with recommended doses of fertilizerse5
Outcome
crude protein, gluten, ashe4
Direction
improvede4
Comparator
control and imbalanced fertilizatione4

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e4

“improved all the crop quality parameters viz. crude protein, gluten, ash, fat, fiber and carbohydrate as compared to control and imbalanced fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1192 · show in text ↑
e5

“Application of FYM and lime along with recommended doses of fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1038 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

FYM and lime with recommended fertilizers improved fat, fiber and carbohydrate compared with control and imbalanced fertilization.

Treatment
Application of FYM and lime along with recommended doses of fertilizerse5
Outcome
fat, fiber and carbohydratee4
Direction
improvede4
Comparator
control and imbalanced fertilizatione4

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e4

“improved all the crop quality parameters viz. crude protein, gluten, ash, fat, fiber and carbohydrate as compared to control and imbalanced fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1192 · show in text ↑
e5

“Application of FYM and lime along with recommended doses of fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1038 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imbalanced fertilization for 45 years led to a decline in crop quality parameters.

Treatment
imbalanced fertilization for the last 45 yearse6
Outcome
crop quality parameterse6
Direction
declinee6

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e6

“imbalanced fertilization for the last 45 years led to decline in crop quality parameters”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1168–1256 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus, magnesium and iron content of wheat grain was highest in the FYM-amended treatment and lowest in control.

Organ / stage
wheat graine7
Treatment
FYM amended treatmente7
Outcome
phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe) contente7
Direction
higheste7
Comparator
controle7

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e7

“Nutrient content in wheat grain i.e., phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg) and iron (Fe) content was also the highest in FYM amended treatment and lowest in control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1258–1416 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Calcium content was highest in the lime-amended plot and lowest in control.

Treatment
lime amended plote1
Outcome
calcium (Ca) contente1
Direction
higheste1
Comparator
controle1

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

t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivumL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“Whereas, calcium (Ca) content was the highest in lime amended plot and the lowest in control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1418–1510 · show in text ↑

lime · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

46 papers: 36 positive, 10 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

42 papers more in this group

See all 46 papers →

fertilization · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

173 papers: 146 positive, 27 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 146 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

169 papers more in this group

See all 173 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

566 papers: 501 positive, 65 negative or no effect

500 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

562 papers more in this group

See all 566 papers →

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

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

323 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,737 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 papers →

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

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 papers →

lime · quality: sugar starch · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 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.