Paper · 2021 · Annals of Plant and Soil Research

Effect of omission of nutrients on productivity, uptake of nutrients in maize (Zea mays L.) and residual soil fertility in Dystrudept of Nagaland

MARY LALFAKZUALI

20
claims
37
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at the research farm, SASRD, Nagaland University, Medziphema during the Kharif season of 2019 to study the productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by nutrient omission in Dystrudept of Nagaland. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design (RBD) with three replications and seven treatments. Results revealed that growth, yield attributes and yield of maize were found significantly superior under the treatment where all the nutrients (N, P, K, Zn, B, lime) were applied. It was observed that the most limiting nutrient for the growth and yield of maize was nitrogen followed by phosphorus and lime. Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment. The nutrient uptake by maize was found significantly higher in the treatment with all nutrients. Omission of various nutrients significantly reduced the nutrient uptake by maize. Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B reduced their respective uptake by 55.5, 63.1, 43.7, 24.0 and 25.8%, respectively over all the nutrients treatment. Lime omission declined Ca and Mg uptake by 47.2 and 44.5%, respectively. The available major and micro nutrients in post-harvest soil were found significantly higher under the treatment which contains all the nutrients. Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B significantly reduced their respective available content in post harvest soil and lime omission significantly reduced ex. Ca and Mg content of experimental soil. Soil pH was significantly lower and total potential acidity was significantly higher in lime omitted plots.

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 20

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Full nutrient application significantly improved maize growth, yield attributes and yield.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
all the nutrients (N, P, K, Zn, B, lime) were appliede0
Outcome
growth, yield attributes and yielde0
Direction
superiore0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth, yield attributes and yield of maize were found significantly superior under the treatment where all the nutrients (N, P, K, Zn, B, lime) were applied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 367–524 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen was the most limiting nutrient, followed by phosphorus and lime.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Outcome
growth and yielde0
Qualifier
most limiting nutriente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the most limiting nutrient for the growth and yield of maize was nitrogen followed by phosphorus and lime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 547–652 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen omission reduced maize grain yield by 24.6%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Omission of Ne0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
24.6e0
Comparator
all the treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–800 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus omission reduced maize grain yield by 21.0%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Pe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
21.0e0
Comparator
all the treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–800 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium omission reduced maize grain yield by 13.6%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Ke0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
13.6e0
Comparator
all the treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–800 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zinc omission reduced maize grain yield by 8.0%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Zne0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
8.0e0
Comparator
all the treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–800 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boron omission reduced maize grain yield by 9.1%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Be0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
9.1e0
Comparator
all the treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–800 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime omission reduced maize grain yield by 17.4%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
limee0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
17.4%e0
Comparator
all the treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn, B and lime reduced grain yield to the extent of 24.6, 21.0, 13.6, 8.0, 9.1 and 17.4%, respectively over all the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–800 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Full nutrient treatment significantly increased maize nutrient uptake.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
all nutrientse0
Outcome
nutrient uptakee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nutrient uptake by maize was found significantly higher in the treatment with all nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 806–897 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

N omission reduced N uptake by 55.5%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Ne0
Outcome
uptakee0
Direction
reducede0
Value
55.5e0
Comparator
all the nutrients treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B reduced their respective uptake by 55.5, 63.1, 43.7, 24.0 and 25.8%, respectively over all the nutrients treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1125 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

P omission reduced P uptake by 63.1%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Pe0
Outcome
uptakee0
Direction
reducede0
Value
63.1e0
Comparator
all the nutrients treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B reduced their respective uptake by 55.5, 63.1, 43.7, 24.0 and 25.8%, respectively over all the nutrients treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1125 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

K omission reduced K uptake by 43.7%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Ke0
Outcome
uptakee0
Direction
reducede0
Value
43.7e0
Comparator
all the nutrients treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B reduced their respective uptake by 55.5, 63.1, 43.7, 24.0 and 25.8%, respectively over all the nutrients treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1125 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Zn omission reduced Zn uptake by 24.0%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Zne0
Outcome
uptakee0
Direction
reducede0
Value
24.0e0
Comparator
all the nutrients treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B reduced their respective uptake by 55.5, 63.1, 43.7, 24.0 and 25.8%, respectively over all the nutrients treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1125 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

B omission reduced B uptake by 25.8%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Be0
Outcome
uptakee0
Direction
reducede0
Value
25.8%e0
Comparator
all the nutrients treatmente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B reduced their respective uptake by 55.5, 63.1, 43.7, 24.0 and 25.8%, respectively over all the nutrients treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1125 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime omission decreased Ca uptake by 47.2%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Lime omissione0
Outcome
Ca and Mg uptakee0
Direction
declinede0
Value
47.2e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Lime omission declined Ca and Mg uptake by 47.2 and 44.5%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1127–1198 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime omission decreased Mg uptake by 44.5%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Lime omissione0
Outcome
Mg uptakee0
Direction
declinede0
Value
44.5%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Lime omission declined Ca and Mg uptake by 47.2 and 44.5%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1127–1198 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Full nutrient treatment significantly increased available major and micronutrients in postharvest soil.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
all the nutrientse0
Outcome
available major and micro nutrients in post-harvest soile0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“available major and micro nutrients in post-harvest soil were found significantly higher under the treatment which contains all the nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1204–1345 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Omitting N, P, K, Zn, or B significantly reduced their available postharvest soil content.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Omission of N, P, K, Zn and Be0
Outcome
available content in post harvest soile0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Omission of N, P, K, Zn and B significantly reduced their respective available content in post harvest soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1347–1454 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime omission significantly reduced exchangeable Ca and Mg in soil.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
lime omissione0
Outcome
ex. Ca and Mg content of experimental soile0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“lime omission significantly reduced ex. Ca and Mg content of experimental soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1537 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime omission lowered soil pH and raised potential acidity.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
lime omitted plotse0
Outcome
Soil pHe0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soil pH was significantly lower and total potential acidity was significantly higher in lime omitted plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1539–1645 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–175 · show in text ↑

boron atom · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

26 papers: 18 positive, 8 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

boron atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

83 papers: 72 positive, 11 negative or no effect

71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

79 papers more in this group

See all 83 papers →

zinc atom · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

235 papers: 199 positive, 36 negative or no effect

198 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

231 papers more in this group

See all 235 papers →

zinc atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

441 papers: 391 positive, 50 negative or no effect

390 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

437 papers more in this group

See all 441 papers →

lime · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

42 papers: 36 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 papers →

potassium · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

96 papers: 74 positive, 22 negative or no effect

73 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction

This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

92 papers more in this group

See all 96 papers →

lime · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

95 papers: 71 positive, 24 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 71 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

91 papers more in this group

See all 95 papers →

lime · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

219 papers: 185 positive, 34 negative or no effect

184 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

215 papers more in this group

See all 219 papers →

8 of 13 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.