Abstract
Decline in soil fertility is one of the major constraints to sustainable crop production and profitability. To meet the increasing demand for the growing population the issue of low soil fertility needs to be addressed. An on-farm experiment was established to evaluate the effect of interaction between NPK fertilizers and minimum tillage on soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins. The field trials were set up in a split-plot design organized in a randomized complete block design in 28 farmers' fields. Application of all the three macronutrients i.e. NPK had the highest and significant (P < 0.0001) yields relative to treatments, where any of the three nutrients was omitted. Maize grain yield increased by over 150% with NPK, NP and NK application in all the three cropping seasons over the control. Grain losses with the omission of a single nutrient were highest with N (2.06, 2.40 & 2.42 t ha-1) followed by P (0.8, 0.59 & 0.43 t ha-1) in the short rain 2014 (SR2014), long rains 2015 (LR2015) and SR2015 seasons, respectively. Conservation agriculture recorded a significant (P < 0.0007) increase in P over the three seasons. There was significantly higher K in the soil within the NP and PK treatments and in the conservation agriculture compared to the conventional agriculture systems. Compared with conventional tillage, the benefit to cost ratio was higher by 3 and 5% under minimum tillage during the LR2015 and SR2015 seasons, respectively. Total variable cost was 4 and 2% higher under conventional tillage compared to minimum tillage during the LR2015 and SR2015 seasons, respectively. Treatments with N and conservation agriculture were the most profitable. A combined use of conservation agriculture and all the three macro-nutrients (NPK) is the best bet for increasing, maize crop yield and associated return on investment.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
NPK gave the highest significant maize yields compared with treatments omitting a nutrient.
- Treatment
- NPKe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- treatments, where any of the three nutrients was omittede0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of all the three macronutrients i.e. NPK had the highest and significant (P < 0.0001) yields relative to treatments, where any of the three nutrients was omitted.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK increased maize grain yield by over 150% versus control across three seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yield increased by over 150% with NPK, NP and NK application in all the three cropping seasons over the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
NP increased maize grain yield by over 150% versus control across three seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yield increased by over 150% with NPK, NP and NK application in all the three cropping seasons over the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
NK increased maize grain yield by over 150% versus control across three seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yield increased by over 150% with NPK, NP and NK application in all the three cropping seasons over the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Omitting N caused the largest grain losses, 2.06, 2.40 and 2.42 t ha-1 across the three seasons.
- Treatment
- omission of a single nutriente0
- Outcome
- Grain lossese0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 2.06, 2.40 & 2.42 t ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- Ne0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain losses with the omission of a single nutrient were highest with N (2.06, 2.40 & 2.42 t ha-1) followed by P (0.8, 0.59 & 0.43 t ha-1) in the short rain 2014 (SR2014), long rains 2015 (LR2015) and SR2015 seasons, respectively.”
t0“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Omitting P caused grain losses of 0.8, 0.59 and 0.43 t ha-1 across the three seasons.
- Treatment
- omission of a single nutriente0
- Outcome
- Grain lossese0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 0.8, 0.59 & 0.43 t ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- Pe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain losses with the omission of a single nutrient were highest with N (2.06, 2.40 & 2.42 t ha-1) followed by P (0.8, 0.59 & 0.43 t ha-1) in the short rain 2014 (SR2014), long rains 2015 (LR2015) and SR2015 seasons, respectively.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture significantly increased soil P over three seasons.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conservation agriculture recorded a significant (P < 0.0007) increase in P over the three seasons.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil K was significantly higher in NP and PK treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was significantly higher K in the soil within the NP and PK treatments and in the conservation agriculture compared to the conventional agriculture systems.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil K was significantly higher under conservation agriculture than conventional agriculture.
- Treatment
- conservation agriculturee0
- Outcome
- K in the soile0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional agriculture systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was significantly higher K in the soil within the NP and PK treatments and in the conservation agriculture compared to the conventional agriculture systems.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage raised benefit to cost ratio by 3% in LR2015 versus conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- minimum tillagee0
- Outcome
- benefit to cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3 and 5%e0
- Qualifier
- LR2015e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional tillage, the benefit to cost ratio was higher by 3 and 5% under minimum tillage during the LR2015 and SR2015 seasons, respectively.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage raised benefit to cost ratio by 5% in SR2015 versus conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- minimum tillagee0
- Outcome
- benefit to cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5%e0
- Qualifier
- SR2015e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with conventional tillage, the benefit to cost ratio was higher by 3 and 5% under minimum tillage during the LR2015 and SR2015 seasons, respectively.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage raised total variable cost by 4% in LR2015 versus minimum tillage.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- Total variable coste0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4 and 2%e0
- Qualifier
- LR2015e0
- Comparator
- minimum tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total variable cost was 4 and 2% higher under conventional tillage compared to minimum tillage during the LR2015 and SR2015 seasons, respectively.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage raised total variable cost by 2% in SR2015 versus minimum tillage.
- Treatment
- conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- Total variable coste0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2%e0
- Qualifier
- SR2015e0
- Comparator
- minimum tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total variable cost was 4 and 2% higher under conventional tillage compared to minimum tillage during the LR2015 and SR2015 seasons, respectively.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments with N and conservation agriculture were most profitable.
- Treatment
- Treatments with N and conservation agriculturee0
- Outcome
- most profitablee0
- Direction
- most profitablee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Treatments with N and conservation agriculture were the most profitable.”
e1“soil fertility, maize crop yield and on farm profit margins”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend conservation agriculture with NPK to increase maize yield and investment returns.
- Treatment
- combined use of conservation agriculture and all the three macro-nutrients (NPK)e0
- Outcome
- maize crop yield and associated return on investmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A combined use of conservation agriculture and all the three macro-nutrients (NPK) is the best bet for increasing, maize crop yield and associated return on investment.”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →nanoparticle · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
214 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
229 papers more in this group
See all 233 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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
- positive
- positive
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.