Paper · 2021 · Agriculture

Manganese Supply Improves Bread Wheat Productivity, Economic Returns and Grain Biofortification under Conventional and No Tillage Systems

Usman Zulfiqar; Saddam Hussain; Muhammad Ishfaq; et al.

10
claims
14
verbatim quotes
43
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Manganese is an important essential micronutrient, and its deficiency causes latent health issues in humans. Agronomic biofortification can promisingly improve the plant nutrient concentration without changing the genetic makeup of plants. This study was designed to assess the best method of Mn application to enhance productivity and grain Mn contents under conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage (NT) systems. Manganese was delivered through seed coating (250-mg kg−1 seed), osmopriming (0.1-M Mn solution), soil application (1 kg ha−1), and foliar application (0.25-M Mn solution). A general control with no seed Mn application was included, whereas hydropriming and water spray were used as positive control treatments for Mn seed priming and Mn foliar spray, respectively. No tillage had a higher total soil porosity (9%), soil organic carbon (16%), soil microbial biomass carbon (4%), nitrogen (2%), and soil nutrients in the CT system. Manganese nutrition through various methods significantly enhanced the yield, grain biofortification, and net benefits for CT and NT systems. Averaged across two years, the maximum improvement in grain productivity was recorded with osmopriming (28%) followed by foliar application (26%). The highest grain Mn concentration (29% over no application) was recorded with Mn foliar applications under both tillage systems. Moreover, the highest economic returns and marginal net benefits were recorded with osmopriming. To improve the wheat production, profitability, and grain Mn concentration, Mn application through priming and foliar application may be opted.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tillage had higher total soil porosity than the conventional tillage system.

Treatment
No tillagee1
Outcome
total soil porositye1
Direction
highere1
Value
9%e1
Comparator
CT systeme1

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e1

“No tillage had a higher total soil porosity (9%), soil organic carbon (16%), soil microbial biomass carbon (4%), nitrogen (2%), and soil nutrients in the CT system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–944 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tillage had higher soil organic carbon than the conventional tillage system.

Treatment
No tillagee1
Outcome
soil organic carbone1
Direction
highere1
Value
16%e1
Comparator
CT systeme1

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e1

“No tillage had a higher total soil porosity (9%), soil organic carbon (16%), soil microbial biomass carbon (4%), nitrogen (2%), and soil nutrients in the CT system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–944 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tillage had higher soil microbial biomass carbon than the conventional tillage system.

Treatment
No tillagee1
Outcome
soil microbial biomass carbone1
Direction
highere1
Value
4%e1
Comparator
CT systeme1

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e1

“No tillage had a higher total soil porosity (9%), soil organic carbon (16%), soil microbial biomass carbon (4%), nitrogen (2%), and soil nutrients in the CT system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–944 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tillage had higher soil nitrogen than the conventional tillage system.

Treatment
No tillagee1
Outcome
nitrogene1
Direction
highere1
Value
2%e1
Comparator
CT systeme1

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e1

“No tillage had a higher total soil porosity (9%), soil organic carbon (16%), soil microbial biomass carbon (4%), nitrogen (2%), and soil nutrients in the CT system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–944 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil nutrients were reported as higher under no tillage, though the sentence places the comparison in the CT system.

Treatment
No tillagee1
Outcome
soil nutrientse1
Direction
highere1
Comparator
CT systeme1

Not reportedTaxon

Schema note from the model: source sentence wording is ambiguous: "in the CT system" may attach to soil nutrients with the opposite direction

Verbatim

e1

“No tillage had a higher total soil porosity (9%), soil organic carbon (16%), soil microbial biomass carbon (4%), nitrogen (2%), and soil nutrients in the CT system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–944 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Manganese nutrition through various methods enhanced yield, grain biofortification and net benefits of bread wheat under both tillage systems.

Taxon
Bread WheatTriticum aestivumt1
Treatment
Manganese nutrition through various methodse2
Outcome
yield, grain biofortification, and net benefitse2
Direction
enhancede2

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

t1

“Manganese Supply Improves Bread Wheat Productivity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–50 · show in text ↑
e2

“Manganese nutrition through various methods significantly enhanced the yield, grain biofortification, and net benefits for CT and NT systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 946–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Osmopriming gave the maximum improvement in grain productivity of bread wheat, 28%, followed by foliar application at 26%.

Taxon
Bread WheatTriticum aestivumt1
Treatment
osmopriminge3
Outcome
grain productivitye3
Direction
maximum improvemente3
Value
28%e3
Qualifier
26%e3
Comparator
foliar applicatione3

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

t1

“Manganese Supply Improves Bread Wheat Productivity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–50 · show in text ↑
e3

“the maximum improvement in grain productivity was recorded with osmopriming (28%) followed by foliar application (26%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1115–1233 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mn foliar application gave the highest grain Mn concentration of bread wheat, 29% above no application, under both tillage systems.

Taxon
Bread WheatTriticum aestivumt1
Treatment
Mn foliar applicationse4
Outcome
grain Mn concentratione4
Direction
higheste4
Value
29%e4
Comparator
no applicatione4

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

t1

“Manganese Supply Improves Bread Wheat Productivity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–50 · show in text ↑
e4

“The highest grain Mn concentration (29% over no application) was recorded with Mn foliar applications under both tillage systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1235–1363 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Osmopriming gave the highest economic returns and marginal net benefits for bread wheat.

Taxon
Bread WheatTriticum aestivumt1
Treatment
osmopriminge5
Outcome
economic returns and marginal net benefitse5
Direction
higheste5

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

t1

“Manganese Supply Improves Bread Wheat Productivity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–50 · show in text ↑
e5

“the highest economic returns and marginal net benefits were recorded with osmopriming”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1375–1460 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Manganese application through priming and foliar application may be adopted to improve wheat production, profitability and grain Mn concentration.

Outcome
Mn application through priming and foliar applicatione7

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

e7

“To improve the wheat production, profitability, and grain Mn concentration, Mn application through priming and foliar application may be opted”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1462–1604 · show in text ↑

manganese atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

35 papers: 28 positive, 7 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

31 papers more in this group

See all 35 papers →

manganese atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

65 papers: 61 positive, 4 negative or no effect

60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

61 papers more in this group

See all 65 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

275 papers: 257 positive, 18 negative or no effect

256 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

271 papers more in this group

See all 275 papers →

seed treatment · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

301 papers: 270 positive, 31 negative or no effect

269 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

297 papers more in this group

See all 301 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.