Abstract
IELD experiment was conducted for two consecutive seasons (2011 and 2012) to compare Grapevine response to conventional soil P application as triple super phosphate (TSP) and fertigation when P is applied in the form of phosphoric acid (H 3 PO 4 ), ammonium polyphosphate (APP) and urea phosphate (UP). Two rates of phosphorus were used, 20 and 40 Kg P 2 O 5 /fed. Plant and soil samples were collected and analyzed for chemical analysis. The data presented that total soluble solid (T.S.S), leaf petioles P, Zn, Fe, yield and P concentration in soil were higher with P fertigation than conventional soil P application and increased with increasing P rate. While the soil pH decreased significantly under P fertigation compared to conventional soil application.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Total soluble solids were higher with P fertigation than with conventional soil P application, and increased with increasing P rate.
- Treatment
- P fertigatione1
- Outcome
- total soluble solid (T.S.S)e1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- increased with increasing P ratee1
- Comparator
- conventional soil P applicatione1
- Setting
- two consecutive seasons (2011 and 2012)e0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“IELD experiment was conducted for two consecutive seasons (2011 and 2012)”
e1“The data presented that total soluble solid (T.S.S), leaf petioles P, Zn, Fe, yield and P concentration in soil were higher with P fertigation than conventional soil P application and increased with increasing P rate”
e3“to compare Grapevine response to conventional soil P application”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf petiole P, Zn and Fe were higher with P fertigation than with conventional soil P application.
- Treatment
- P fertigatione1
- Outcome
- leaf petioles P, Zn, Fee1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- conventional soil P applicatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The data presented that total soluble solid (T.S.S), leaf petioles P, Zn, Fe, yield and P concentration in soil were higher with P fertigation than conventional soil P application and increased with increasing P rate”
e3“to compare Grapevine response to conventional soil P application”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and soil P concentration were higher with P fertigation than with conventional soil P application.
- Treatment
- P fertigatione1
- Outcome
- yield and P concentration in soile1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- conventional soil P applicatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The data presented that total soluble solid (T.S.S), leaf petioles P, Zn, Fe, yield and P concentration in soil were higher with P fertigation than conventional soil P application and increased with increasing P rate”
e3“to compare Grapevine response to conventional soil P application”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil pH decreased significantly under P fertigation compared with conventional soil application.
- Treatment
- P fertigatione2
- Outcome
- soil pHe2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Comparator
- conventional soil applicatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“While the soil pH decreased significantly under P fertigation compared to conventional soil application”
e3“to compare Grapevine response to conventional soil P application”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.