Abstract
The aim was to improve the fertilizer utilization efficiency and alleviate environmental pollution risk under a wheat-maize rotation system. Here, the combinations of different nitrogen stabilizers and phosphorus activators were used to reduce nitrogen loss and phosphorus fixation in the field experiment. Compared to the control, the combination of 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP + biochar showed the most significant effect on the retention of alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen (Nah), the highest with an increase of 22.6% at the 0~20 cm layer soil; and the combination of 1.5%HQ + 3.5%DCD + CMFs (compound microbial fertilizers) showed the most significant effect on the maintenance of available phosphorus (Pa), with the highest increase of 41.3%. N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizer could effectively slow down the transformation from NH4+ to NO3−, and keep NH4+ at an increase of 7.38%~19.6%. Moreover, the N, P synergists could efficiently lock the available nutrients around the roots, preventing the migration of NO3−, NH4+, Nah, and Pa to the deeper layers. Especially for NO3−, the total accumulation at 0~60 cm decreased by 32.1%, and the activation of Pa was mainly concentrated at 0~40 cm. Under the same nutrient inputs, the combination of 0.3%NBPT + 0.5%DMPP + CMFs obtained the highest wheat yield. The combination of 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP+ biochar gained the highest maize yield. Overall, the application of N, P synergists could increase the effective duration of Nah, Pa, and NH4+ in the surface soil, and reduce the accumulation of NO3− in the 0~60 cm soil layer. The capacity of holding and keeping nutrients from leaching rose obviously; simultaneously, the assimilative capacity of crops for nitrogen and phosphorus increased distinctly, which could lower the eutrophia risks from nitrogen and phosphorus.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
The combination 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP + biochar gave the largest retention of alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen, an increase of 22.6% in the 0~20 cm soil layer compared with control.
- Taxon
- Wheat/Maize
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP + biochare1
- Outcome
- retention of alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen (Nah)e1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 22.6%e1
- Comparator
- controle1
- Setting
- 0~20 cm layer soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e1“Compared to the control, the combination of 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP + biochar showed the most significant effect on the retention of alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen (Nah), the highest with an increase of 22.6% at the 0~20 cm layer soil”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination 1.5%HQ + 3.5%DCD + CMFs gave the largest maintenance of available phosphorus, an increase of 41.3% compared with control.
- Taxon
- Wheat/MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- 1.5%HQ + 3.5%DCD + CMFse2
- Outcome
- maintenance of available phosphorus (Pa)e2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 41.3%e2
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e1“Compared to the control, the combination of 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP + biochar showed the most significant effect on the retention of alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen (Nah), the highest with an increase of 22.6% at the 0~20 cm layer soil”
e2“the combination of 1.5%HQ + 3.5%DCD + CMFs (compound microbial fertilizers) showed the most significant effect on the maintenance of available phosphorus (Pa), with the highest increase of 41.3%”
Claim · model-written summary
N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizer kept NH4+ at an increase of 7.38%~19.6% compared with control.
- Taxon
- Wheat/MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizere3
- Outcome
- NH4+e4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Value
- 7.38%~19.6%e4
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e1“Compared to the control, the combination of 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP + biochar showed the most significant effect on the retention of alkali-hydrolysable nitrogen (Nah), the highest with an increase of 22.6% at the 0~20 cm layer soil”
e3“N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizer”
e4“keep NH4+ at an increase of 7.38%~19.6%”
Claim · model-written summary
N, P synergists decreased the total accumulation at 0~60 cm by 32.1%.
- Taxon
- Wheat/MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N, P synergistse3
- Outcome
- total accumulation at 0~60 cme5
- Direction
- decreasede5
- Value
- 32.1%e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e3“N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizer”
e5“the total accumulation at 0~60 cm decreased by 32.1%”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination 0.3%NBPT + 0.5%DMPP + CMFs gave the highest wheat yield under the same nutrient inputs.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- 0.3%NBPT + 0.5%DMPP + CMFse6
- Outcome
- wheat yielde6
- Direction
- higheste6
- Comparator
- the same nutrient inputse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Under the same nutrient inputs, the combination of 0.3%NBPT + 0.5%DMPP + CMFs obtained the highest wheat yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP+ biochar gave the highest maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“The combination of 1.5%HQ + 0.5%DMPP+ biochar gained the highest maize yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
N, P synergists increased the effective duration of Nah, Pa and NH4+ in the surface soil.
- Taxon
- Wheat/MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N, P synergistse4
- Outcome
- effective duration of Nah, Pa, and NH4+ in the surface soile4
- Direction
- increasee4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e4“the application of N, P synergists could increase the effective duration of Nah, Pa, and NH4+ in the surface soil”
Claim · model-written summary
The capacity of holding and keeping nutrients from leaching rose obviously with N, P synergists.
- Taxon
- Wheat/MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N, P synergistse3
- Outcome
- capacity of holding and keeping nutrients from leachinge6
- Direction
- rosee6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e3“N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizer”
e6“The capacity of holding and keeping nutrients from leaching rose obviously”
Claim · model-written summary
The assimilative capacity of crops for nitrogen and phosphorus increased distinctly with N, P synergists.
- Taxon
- Wheat/MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N, P synergistse3
- Outcome
- assimilative capacity of crops for nitrogen and phosphoruse5
- Direction
- increasede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“on Wheat/Maize Rotation in Brown Soil”
e3“N, P synergists combined with a basal fertilizer”
e5“the assimilative capacity of crops for nitrogen and phosphorus increased distinctly”
The same questions in other papers
phosphorus · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →phosphorus · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 papers →nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
113 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
162 papers more in this group
See all 166 papers →biochar · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
174 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
189 papers more in this group
See all 193 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
197 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
222 papers more in this group
See all 226 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
240 papers more in this group
See all 244 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
196 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
242 papers more in this group
See all 246 papers →8 of 11 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.