Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate levels of potassium and nitrogen fertilizer inversion in the black oat crop on corn crop yields. The experimental design was a randomized block design with subdivided plots with three repetitions. The treatments were four nitrogen fertilization strategies, four potassium fertilization strategies, and two oat crop managements (forage and cover crop). The strategies involved winter (oats) and summer (corn) application, respectively, with the following combinations of nitrogen (200-0; 150-50; 50-150; 0-200 kg N ha-1) and potassium (80-0; 60-20; 20-60; 0-80 kg K ha-1). We evaluated the morphological aspects, grain productivity, chlorophyll contents, and light interception of oats for forage production and ground cover, and for corn the yield components and productivity. Oats managed as forage showed higher forage mass production but lower values of residual biomass, canopy height, extended tiller length, lodging index, radiation interception, and oat chlorophyll A and total. Light interception in the oat crop was higher when nitrogen was applied in the pasture. For the corn crop, nitrogen applied partially on black oat and the remaining on corn row crop increases stalk diameter. Fertilization strategies showed no significant effect on both crops in the system, indicating that it is possible to reverse or apply the entire amount of N and K predicted for the two crops in winter.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Oats managed as forage produced higher forage mass than oats used as cover crop.
- Taxon
- Oats
Avena sativae2 - Treatment
- managed as foragee2
- Outcome
- forage mass productione2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- cover crope1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“two oat crop managements (forage and cover crop)”
e2“Oats managed as forage showed higher forage mass production but lower values of residual biomass, canopy height, extended tiller length, lodging index, radiation interception, and oat chlorophyll A and total”
Claim · model-written summary
Oats managed as forage had lower residual biomass, canopy height and extended tiller length than cover-crop oats.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativae2
- Treatment
- managed as foragee2
- Outcome
- residual biomass, canopy height, extended tiller lengthe2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Comparator
- cover crope1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“two oat crop managements (forage and cover crop)”
e2“Oats managed as forage showed higher forage mass production but lower values of residual biomass, canopy height, extended tiller length, lodging index, radiation interception, and oat chlorophyll A and total”
Claim · model-written summary
Oats managed as forage had lower lodging index, radiation interception and chlorophyll than cover-crop oats.
- Taxon
- OatsAvena sativae2
- Treatment
- managed as foragee2
- Outcome
- lodging index, radiation interception, and oat chlorophyll A and totale2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Comparator
- cover crope1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“two oat crop managements (forage and cover crop)”
e2“Oats managed as forage showed higher forage mass production but lower values of residual biomass, canopy height, extended tiller length, lodging index, radiation interception, and oat chlorophyll A and total”
Claim · model-written summary
Light interception in the oat crop was higher when nitrogen was applied in the pasture.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae3
- Treatment
- nitrogen was applied in the pasturee3
- Outcome
- Light interception in the oat crope3
- Direction
- highere3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Light interception in the oat crop was higher when nitrogen was applied in the pasture”
Claim · model-written summary
Splitting nitrogen between black oat and corn increased corn stalk diameter.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse4 - Treatment
- nitrogen applied partially on black oate4
- Outcome
- stalk diametere4
- Direction
- increasese4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“For the corn crop, nitrogen applied partially on black oat and the remaining on corn row crop increases stalk diameter”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization strategies had no significant effect on both crops.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- Fertilization strategiese5
- Outcome
- effect on both cropse5
- Direction
- no significant effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Fertilization strategies showed no significant effect on both crops in the system”
t0“in different black oat management on corn crop”
Claim · model-written summary
The entire amount of N and K for both crops could be applied in winter.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Outcome
- apply the entire amount of N and K predicted for the two crops in wintere6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“indicating that it is possible to reverse or apply the entire amount of N and K predicted for the two crops in winter”
t0“in different black oat management on corn crop”
The same questions in other papers
Avena strigosa · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
nitrogen · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
618 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 14 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
744 papers more in this group
See all 748 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.