Abstract
Background: Increasing population and food consumption are placing unprecedented demands on crop production. Maize is one of the most important food crops in the world, the improvement of its yield primarily depends on the application of chemical fertilizer. Methods: Earthworm activity is an essential factor in promoting soil fertility and stimulating plant growth. Inspired by amino acids composition of earthworm (Eisenia fetida) epidermal mucus, the liquid fertilizer was developed and prepared by utilizing a bionic approach. The influence of earthworm epidermal mucus (mucus), the mucus-mimicked mixture of amino acids (bionic fertilizer) and urea fertilizer (urea) on maize emergence and growth were studied and compared with the control group (distilled water). Experimental cultivation tests were conducted. The aforementioned three types of liquid fertilizer effects on maize seed vigor index, seedling emergence rate and plant quality were quantitatively evaluated. Results: Based on the conducted research, it was found that the beneficial effects of different fertilizers for maize emergence rate were ranked as follows: mucus > bionic fertilizer > urea. The low concentration treatments were beneficial to the maize emergence, while the high concentration treatments were helpful to the maize growth and root development. Besides, the lower concentration of mucus was the most effective fertilizer treatment for improving seedling quality. In addition, the test results of three types of liquid fertilizer effects on maize growth indicated that the higher concentration treatments provided more nitrogen nutrition than lower concentration treatments. Furthermore, the maize stem height and diameter were significantly promoted (p < 0.05) by the three types of liquid fertilizer. The beneficial influences of liquid fertilizer treatments for plant height, stem diameter, relative chlorophyll content and photosynthetic characteristic of leaves were ranked as follows: bionic fertilizer > urea > mucus. Conclusions: Bionic fertilizer demonstrated significant beneficial fertilizing effects (p < 0.05), which increased soil nutrients, improved maize physiological parameters, promote its growth and improved dry matter accumulation. The tested results verified the effectiveness of bionic fertilizer on stimulating maize growth.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Mucus ranked above bionic fertilizer, which ranked above urea, for maize emergence.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“beneficial effects of different fertilizers for maize emergence rate were ranked as follows: mucus > bionic fertilizer > urea”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Low fertilizer concentrations benefited maize emergence.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The low concentration treatments were beneficial to the maize emergence”
Claim · model-written summary
High fertilizer concentrations helped maize growth and root development.
- Treatment
- high concentration treatmentse0
- Outcome
- maize growth and root developmente0
- Direction
- helpfule0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the high concentration treatments were helpful to the maize growth and root development”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower concentration mucus was the most effective for seedling quality.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lower concentration of mucus was the most effective fertilizer treatment for improving seedling quality”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher concentration liquid fertilizer provided more nitrogen nutrition than lower concentrations.
- Treatment
- higher concentration treatmentse0
- Outcome
- nitrogen nutritione0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- lower concentration treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the higher concentration treatments provided more nitrogen nutrition than lower concentration treatments”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All three liquid fertilizers significantly promoted maize stem height and diameter.
- Treatment
- three types of liquid fertilizere0
- Outcome
- maize stem height and diametere0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize stem height and diameter were significantly promoted (p < 0.05) by the three types of liquid fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Bionic fertilizer ranked above urea and mucus for height, diameter, chlorophyll and leaf photosynthesis.
- Outcome
- plant height, stem diameter, relative chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- bionic fertilizer > urea > mucuse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“beneficial influences of liquid fertilizer treatments for plant height, stem diameter, relative chlorophyll content and photosynthetic characteristic of leaves were ranked as follows: bionic fertilizer > urea > mucus”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Bionic fertilizer significantly increased soil nutrients, maize physiology, growth and dry matter.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bionic fertilizer demonstrated significant beneficial fertilizing effects (p < 0.05), which increased soil nutrients, improved maize physiological parameters, promote its growth and improved dry matter accumulation”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
158 papers more in this group
See all 162 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
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
1,361 papers more in this group
See all 1,365 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.