Paper · 2020 · E3S Web of Conferences

Agroecological justification of winter wheat fertilization systems in the south-west of the Central Black-soil region

Sergey Tyutyunov; Pavel Solntsev; Alexey Stupakov; et al.

9
claims
19
verbatim quotes
25
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Under the conditions of the south-western part of the Central Black-soil region in the grain-and-plant crop rotation on the black-soil the typical maximum yield of winter wheat was 5.52 t/ha when using the organic-mineral fertilizer system as part of mineral fertilizers in the dose of N60P60K60 and manure in the dose of 40 t/ha according to the third level of plant protection (seed etching of herbicide fungicide insecticide growth substances) with maximum payback of 1 kg of mineral fertilizers with grain harvest increase – 15.5 kg. Yield increase at the 1st level of plant protection (seed etching) was 1.86 t/ha (68.1%), at the 2nd level of protection (seed etching of herbicide fungicide) – 2.55 t/ha (93.4%) and at the 3rd level of protection – 2.79 t/ha (102.2%). The highest increase from pesticides was 0.69 and 0.93 t/ha (15.0 and 20.3%), respectively. The use of such a fertilizer system is justified, in which the energy coefficient was 1.03 and 1.05. The design of an organic fertilizer system using manure does not meet the requirements of bioenergy efficiency at all levels of plant protection (Кee = 0.79-0.87).

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

The organic-mineral system with third-level protection produced a maximum wheat yield of 5.52 t/ha.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
organic-mineral fertilizer system as part of mineral fertilizers in the dose of N60P60K60 and manure in the dose of 40 t/hae0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
maximume0
Value
5.52 t/hae0
Qualifier
third level of plant protectione0

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

“maximum yield of winter wheat was 5.52 t/ha when using the organic-mineral fertilizer system as part of mineral fertilizers in the dose of N60P60K60 and manure in the dose of 40 t/ha according to the third level of plant protection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 147–378 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mineral fertilizers had maximum grain-harvest payback of 15.5 kg per kg fertilizer.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
payback of 1 kg of mineral fertilizers with grain harvest increasee0
Direction
maximume0
Value
15.5 kge0

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

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“maximum payback of 1 kg of mineral fertilizers with grain harvest increase – 15.5 kg”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 452–536 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

First-level plant protection increased yield by 1.86 t/ha (68.1%).

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
1st level of plant protection (seed etching)e0
Outcome
Yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
1.86 t/ha (68.1%)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

t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Yield increase at the 1st level of plant protection (seed etching) was 1.86 t/ha (68.1%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 538–626 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Second-level plant protection increased yield by 2.55 t/ha (93.4%).

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
2nd level of protection (seed etching of herbicide fungicide)e0
Outcome
Yielde1
Direction
increasee1
Value
2.55 t/ha (93.4%)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

t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“at the 2nd level of protection (seed etching of herbicide fungicide) – 2.55 t/ha (93.4%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–716 · show in text ↑
e1

“Yield increase at the 1st level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 538–569 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Third-level plant protection increased yield by 2.79 t/ha (102.2%).

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
3rd level of protectione0
Outcome
Yielde1
Direction
increasee1
Value
2.79 t/ha (102.2%)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

t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“at the 3rd level of protection – 2.79 t/ha (102.2%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–772 · show in text ↑
e1

“Yield increase at the 1st level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 538–569 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The first stated pesticide contribution to yield increase was 0.69 t/ha (15.0%).

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
increase from pesticidese0
Direction
increasee0
Value
0.69e0
Qualifier
15.0e0

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

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest increase from pesticides was 0.69 and 0.93 t/ha (15.0 and 20.3%), respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–865 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The second stated pesticide contribution to yield increase was 0.93 t/ha (20.3%).

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
increase from pesticidese0
Direction
increasee0
Value
0.93 t/hae0
Qualifier
20.3%e0

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

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest increase from pesticides was 0.69 and 0.93 t/ha (15.0 and 20.3%), respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–865 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fertilizer system had energy coefficients of 1.03 and 1.05.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
energy coefficiente0
Value
1.03 and 1.05e0

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

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“The use of such a fertilizer system is justified, in which the energy coefficient was 1.03 and 1.05.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 866–966 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The manure-based organic fertilizer system failed bioenergy efficiency requirements at all protection levels.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
organic fertilizer system using manuree0
Outcome
does not meet the requirements of bioenergy efficiencye0
Value
0.79-0.87e0

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

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“The design of an organic fertilizer system using manure does not meet the requirements of bioenergy efficiency at all levels of plant protection (Кee = 0.79-0.87).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1130 · show in text ↑

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

262 papers: 232 positive, 30 negative or no effect

231 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

258 papers more in this group

See all 262 papers →

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

563 papers: 466 positive, 97 negative or no effect

465 papers in the same direction as this paper · 87 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

559 papers more in this group

See all 563 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 →

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.