Abstract
Improved the utilization of fertilizer while maintaining the increased of grain yield was the focus of Chinese researchers. Nutrient uptake, distribution, and remobilization are important factors affecting the fertilizer utilization and grain yield of maize. This study aimed to provide a theoretical and practical basis for science-based, high-yielding, and high-efficiency cultivation practices by examining differences in biomass and nutrient uptake, distribution, and remobilization characteristics under three cultivation patterns. We set 12 treatments as follows: super high-yielding cultivation pattern (SH), optimized nutrient management cultivation pattern (ONM), local farmer's practice cultivation pattern (FP), and a series of nutrient omission plots, which excluded nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), or potassium (K) from the three patterns. The results demonstrated that SH and ONM increased the yield and actual harvested ears by 35.4, 20.7 and by 20.2, 17.6%, respectively. Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively. SH and ONM significantly increased biomass and nutrient distribution to the grains. ONM significantly increased N use efficiency. P and K use efficiency under the ONM pattern was significantly higher than under SH, but was lower than under the FP pattern over two years. This research demonstrates that ONM may significantly reduce fertilizer rates, effectively improve the nutrient remobilization efficiency and uptake at post-silking without negatively affecting grain yield, thereby increasing N use efficiency.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased yield by 35.4% versus farmer practice.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SH and ONM increased the yield and actual harvested ears by 35.4, 20.7 and by 20.2, 17.6%, respectively.”
e1“local farmer's practice cultivation pattern (FP)”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased yield by 20.7% versus farmer practice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SH and ONM increased the yield and actual harvested ears by 35.4, 20.7 and by 20.2, 17.6%, respectively.”
e1“local farmer's practice cultivation pattern (FP)”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased harvested ears by 20.2% versus farmer practice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SH and ONM increased the yield and actual harvested ears by 35.4, 20.7 and by 20.2, 17.6%, respectively.”
e1“local farmer's practice cultivation pattern (FP)”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased harvested ears by 17.6% versus farmer practice.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SH and ONM increased the yield and actual harvested ears by 35.4, 20.7 and by 20.2, 17.6%, respectively.”
e1“local farmer's practice cultivation pattern (FP)”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased silking biomass by 24.4% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- SHe0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.4e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased silking N accumulation by 31.2% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- SHe0
- Outcome
- Ne0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 31.2e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased silking P accumulation by 39.4% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- SHe0
- Outcome
- Pe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 39.4e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased silking K accumulation by 34.8% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- SHe0
- Outcome
- K accumulatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 34.8%e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased silking biomass by 21.7% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- ONMe0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 21.7e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased silking N accumulation by 22.2% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- ONMe0
- Outcome
- Ne0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22.2e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased silking P accumulation by 31.7% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- ONMe0
- Outcome
- Pe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 31.7e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased silking K accumulation by 34.8% versus FP.
- Organ / stage
- silking (R1 stage)e0
- Treatment
- ONMe0
- Outcome
- K accumulatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 34.8%e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the FP, SH and ONM increased biomass, N, P, and K accumulation at silking (R1 stage) by 24.4, 31.2, 39.4, and 34.8%, and by 21.7, 22.2, 31.7, and 34.8%, respectively.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
SH increased biomass and nutrient distribution to grain.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SH and ONM significantly increased biomass and nutrient distribution to the grains.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM increased biomass and nutrient distribution to grain.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SH and ONM significantly increased biomass and nutrient distribution to the grains.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM significantly increased N use efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ONM significantly increased N use efficiency.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM P use efficiency exceeded SH but was below FP.
- Treatment
- ONM patterne0
- Outcome
- Pe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- lower than under the FP patterne0
- Comparator
- SHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P and K use efficiency under the ONM pattern was significantly higher than under SH, but was lower than under the FP pattern over two years.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM K use efficiency exceeded SH but was below FP.
- Treatment
- ONM patterne0
- Outcome
- K use efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- lower than under the FP patterne0
- Comparator
- SHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P and K use efficiency under the ONM pattern was significantly higher than under SH, but was lower than under the FP pattern over two years.”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM may reduce fertilizer rates without harming grain yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ONM may significantly reduce fertilizer rates, effectively improve the nutrient remobilization efficiency and uptake at post-silking without negatively affecting grain yield”
t0“summer maize”
Claim · model-written summary
ONM may improve nutrient remobilization efficiency and post-silking uptake.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ONM may significantly reduce fertilizer rates, effectively improve the nutrient remobilization efficiency and uptake at post-silking without negatively affecting grain yield”
t0“summer maize”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
173 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,025 papers in the same direction as this paper · 127 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
1,160 papers more in this group
See all 1,164 papers →fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 149 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
1,361 papers more in this group
See all 1,365 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.