Paper · 2018 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Enhancement of apple (Malus domestica) productivity and soil health through organic fertilization and bio-inoculants under north-western Himalayan region of India

SARVENDRA KUMAR; ANIL SHARMA; V K SHARMA; et al.

9
claims
20
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

A field experiment was performed to assess the medium-term effect of mineral fertilizer and organic fertilizer (vermicompost) supplemented with microbial inoculants (Azotobacter and Microphos) on growth parameters of apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur) and soil health parameters. Eight different combinations of mineral fertilizer, vermicompost (VC) and microbial inoculants treatments were applied during 2012 to 2014. The percentage increase in trunk cross section area (TCSA) during the three years of experiment was maximum 17.0% and 15.8% with application of 75% of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + 25% N through VC + Microphos and 50% of RDF + 50% N through VC, respectively. The pooled data of three years revealed that, maximum fruit yield (20.8 tonnes/ha) and production efficiency (112 g/cm2 TCSA) of crop were recorded in the treatment received 50% N through VC and this treatment is similar (P ≤ 0.05) with treatment having application of 75% of RDF + 25% N through VC + Microphos while minimum was recorded in control. Among all treatments, application of 50% N through VC and application of 25% N through VC + Microphos performed better for taming chemical fertility of soil. Study also noticed that, continuous three years application of 50% N through VC, the soil organic carbon, soil microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity of soil increased by 17, 33 and 39%, respectively over control. Overall, study revealed that, plants received 50% of RDF + 50% VC or 25% VC + Microphos had highest ability of promoting the sustainability of apple yield, soil biological and chemical fertility of an agro-ecosystem in north-western Himalayan region.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 75% RDF plus VC and Microphos treatment produced maximum TCSA increase of 17.0%.

Treatment
75% of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + 25% N through VC + Microphose0
Outcome
trunk cross section area (TCSA)e2
Direction
maximume0
Value
17.0%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum 17.0% and 15.8% with application of 75% of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + 25% N through VC + Microphos and 50% of RDF + 50% N through VC, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 532–699 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
e2

“trunk cross section area (TCSA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–490 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 50% RDF plus VC treatment produced 15.8% TCSA increase.

Treatment
50% of RDF + 50% N through VCe0
Outcome
trunk cross section area (TCSA)e2
Direction
maximume0
Value
15.8%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum 17.0% and 15.8% with application of 75% of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + 25% N through VC + Microphos and 50% of RDF + 50% N through VC, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 532–699 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
e2

“trunk cross section area (TCSA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–490 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 50% N through VC treatment gave maximum fruit yield of 20.8 tonnes/ha.

Treatment
50% N through VCe0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
maximume0
Value
20.8 tonnes/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum fruit yield (20.8 tonnes/ha) and production efficiency (112 g/cm2 TCSA) of crop were recorded in the treatment received 50% N through VC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–890 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 50% N through VC treatment gave maximum production efficiency of 112 g/cm2 TCSA.

Treatment
50% N through VCe0
Outcome
production efficiencye0
Direction
maximume0
Value
112 g/cm2 TCSAe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum fruit yield (20.8 tonnes/ha) and production efficiency (112 g/cm2 TCSA) of crop were recorded in the treatment received 50% N through VC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–890 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 50% N through VC treatment performed better for soil chemical fertility.

Treatment
50% N through VCe0
Outcome
chemical fertility of soile0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of 50% N through VC and application of 25% N through VC + Microphos performed better for taming chemical fertility of soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1072–1206 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 25% N through VC plus Microphos treatment performed better for soil chemical fertility.

Treatment
25% N through VC + Microphose0
Outcome
chemical fertility of soile0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of 25% N through VC + Microphos performed better for taming chemical fertility of soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1206 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three years of 50% N through VC raised soil organic carbon 17% over control.

Treatment
50% N through VCe0
Outcome
soil organic carbone0
Direction
increasede0
Value
17e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“continuous three years application of 50% N through VC, the soil organic carbon, soil microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity of soil increased by 17, 33 and 39%, respectively over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1434 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three years of 50% N through VC raised soil microbial biomass carbon 33% over control.

Treatment
50% N through VCe0
Outcome
soil microbial biomass carbone0
Direction
increasede0
Value
33e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“continuous three years application of 50% N through VC, the soil organic carbon, soil microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity of soil increased by 17, 33 and 39%, respectively over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1434 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three years of 50% N through VC raised soil dehydrogenase activity 39% over control.

Treatment
50% N through VCe0
Outcome
dehydrogenase activity of soile0
Direction
increasede0
Value
39%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“continuous three years application of 50% N through VC, the soil organic carbon, soil microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activity of soil increased by 17, 33 and 39%, respectively over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1434 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Oregon Spur)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–263 · show in text ↑

fertilization · soil: biology · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

fertilization · soil: chemistry · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 22 positive, 1 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

49 papers: 31 positive, 18 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

fertilization · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

178 papers: 150 positive, 28 negative or no effect

149 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

174 papers more in this group

See all 178 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.