Abstract
Soil degradation, which is linked to poor nutrient management, remains a major constraint to sustained crop production in smallholder urban agriculture (UA) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). While organic nutrient resources are often used in UA to complement mineral fertilizers in soil fertility management, they are usually scarce and of poor quality to provide optimum nutrients for crop uptake. Alternative soil nutrient management options are required. This study, therefore, evaluates the short-term benefits of applying an aluminium-based water treatment residual (Al-WTR), in combination with compost and inorganic P fertilizer, on soil chemical properties, and maize (Zea mays L.) productivity and nutrient uptake. An eight-week greenhouse experiment was established with 12 treatments consisting of soil, Al-WTR and compost (with or without P fertilizer). The co-amendment (10% Al-WTR + 10% compost) produced maize shoot biomass of 3.92 ± 0.16 g at 5 weeks after emergence, significantly (p < 0.05) out-yielding the unamended control which yielded 1.33 ± 0.17 g. The addition of P fertilizer to the co-amendment further increased maize shoot yield by about twofold (7.23 ± 0.07 g). The co-amendment (10% Al-WTR + 10% C) with P increased maize uptake of zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn), compared with 10% C + P. Overall, the results demonstrate that combining Al-WTR, compost and P fertilizer increases maize productivity and micronutrient uptake in comparison with single amendments of compost and fertilizer. The enhanced micronutrient uptake can potentially improve maize grain quality, and subsequently human nutrition for the urban population of SSA, partly addressing the UN's Sustainable Development Goal number 3 of improving diets.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Co-amendment increased maize shoot biomass compared with unamended control.
- Treatment
- 10% Al-WTR + 10% composte0
- Outcome
- maize shoot biomasse0
- Direction
- out-yieldinge0
- Value
- 3.92 ± 0.16 ge0
- Comparator
- unamended controle0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The co-amendment (10% Al-WTR + 10% compost) produced maize shoot biomass of 3.92 ± 0.16 g at 5 weeks after emergence, significantly (p < 0.05) out-yielding the unamended control which yielded 1.33 ± 0.17 g.”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilizer added to the co-amendment roughly doubled maize shoot yield.
- Treatment
- addition of P fertilizer to the co-amendmente0
- Outcome
- maize shoot yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.23 ± 0.07 ge0
- Comparator
- co-amendmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of P fertilizer to the co-amendment further increased maize shoot yield by about twofold (7.23 ± 0.07 g).”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-amendment with P increased maize uptake of zinc, copper and manganese over compost with P.
- Treatment
- 10% Al-WTR + 10% C) with Pe0
- Outcome
- maize uptake of zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- 10% C + Pe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The co-amendment (10% Al-WTR + 10% C) with P increased maize uptake of zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn), compared with 10% C + P.”
The same questions in other papers
aluminium atom · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →aluminium atom · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
83 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 papers →irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
207 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 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
- 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.