Paper · 2023 · International Journal of Environment and Climate Change

Effect of Nano and Non-Nano Nutrients on Content, Uptake and NUE of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Bal Veer Singh; N. S. Rana; Akshay Kumar Kurdekar; et al.

10
claims
16
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The study was carried out in the winter (rabi) season to determine effect of Nano and Non-nano nutrient, the study's findings revealed that wheat grown with 100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn) had significantly higher uptake, namely N (143.1 kg ha-1), P (28.9 kg ha-1), K (109.0 kg ha-1), and Zn (519.5 g ha-1). Applications of nano nutrients—N, P, K, and Zn, and N + P + K + Zn + 75% NPK—worked synergistically and increased content and uptake over 100% NPK. Similarly, the agronomic efficiency (kg of grain kg-1 of nutrient applied) of N (22.4), P (56.0), and K (84.0) was greatest when 75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zn were applied. In a similar manner, physiological efficiency and partial factor productivity were also found to be significantly higher with the same treatment. Thus, the wheat crop grown with the application of Nano-N + 75 and 100 percent NPK led to higher nutrient content, accumulation, and efficiency.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat given 100% NPK plus nano nutrients had significantly higher N uptake of 143.1 kg ha-1.

Treatment
100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn)e0
Outcome
Ne0
Direction
highere0
Value
143.1 kg ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wheat grown with 100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn) had significantly higher uptake, namely N (143.1 kg ha-1), P (28.9 kg ha-1), K (109.0 kg ha-1), and Zn (519.5 g ha-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–318 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave higher P uptake of 28.9 kg ha-1.

Treatment
100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn)e0
Outcome
Pe0
Direction
highere0
Value
28.9 kg ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wheat grown with 100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn) had significantly higher uptake, namely N (143.1 kg ha-1), P (28.9 kg ha-1), K (109.0 kg ha-1), and Zn (519.5 g ha-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–318 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave higher K uptake of 109.0 kg ha-1.

Treatment
100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn)e0
Outcome
Ke0
Direction
highere0
Value
109.0 kg ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wheat grown with 100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn) had significantly higher uptake, namely N (143.1 kg ha-1), P (28.9 kg ha-1), K (109.0 kg ha-1), and Zn (519.5 g ha-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–318 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave higher Zn uptake of 519.5 g ha-1.

Treatment
100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn)e0
Outcome
Zne0
Direction
highere0
Value
519.5 g ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wheat grown with 100% NPK + nano nutrients (N + P + K + Zn) had significantly higher uptake, namely N (143.1 kg ha-1), P (28.9 kg ha-1), K (109.0 kg ha-1), and Zn (519.5 g ha-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–318 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano N, P, K and Zn increased nutrient content and uptake over 100% NPK.

Treatment
nano nutrients—N, P, K, and Zne0
Outcome
content and uptakee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
100% NPKe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Applications of nano nutrients—N, P, K, and Zn, and N + P + K + Zn + 75% NPK—worked synergistically and increased content and uptake over 100% NPK.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 319–466 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–96 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano N, P, K and Zn with 75% NPK increased content and uptake over 100% NPK.

Treatment
N + P + K + Zn + 75% NPKe0
Outcome
content and uptakee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
100% NPKe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Applications of nano nutrients—N, P, K, and Zn, and N + P + K + Zn + 75% NPK—worked synergistically and increased content and uptake over 100% NPK.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 319–466 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–96 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 75% NPK plus nano nutrient treatment gave greatest N agronomic efficiency, 22.4.

Treatment
75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zne0
Outcome
agronomic efficiency (kg of grain kg-1 of nutrient applied) of Ne0
Direction
greateste0
Value
22.4e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the agronomic efficiency (kg of grain kg-1 of nutrient applied) of N (22.4), P (56.0), and K (84.0) was greatest when 75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zn were applied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 478–650 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–96 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave greatest P agronomic efficiency, 56.0.

Treatment
75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zne0
Outcome
Pe0
Direction
greateste0
Value
56.0e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the agronomic efficiency (kg of grain kg-1 of nutrient applied) of N (22.4), P (56.0), and K (84.0) was greatest when 75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zn were applied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 478–650 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–96 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave greatest K agronomic efficiency, 84.0.

Treatment
75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zne0
Outcome
Ke0
Direction
greateste0
Value
84.0e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the agronomic efficiency (kg of grain kg-1 of nutrient applied) of N (22.4), P (56.0), and K (84.0) was greatest when 75% NPK + nano N + bio nano P, K, and Zn were applied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 478–650 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–96 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The same treatment produced significantly higher physiological efficiency and partial factor productivity.

Treatment
same treatmente0
Outcome
physiological efficiency and partial factor productivitye0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“physiological efficiency and partial factor productivity were also found to be significantly higher with the same treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–796 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–96 · show in text ↑

zinc atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

380 papers: 347 positive, 33 negative or no effect

346 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

376 papers more in this group

See all 380 papers →

zinc atom · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

potassium · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

phosphorus · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

33 papers: 27 positive, 6 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

29 papers more in this group

See all 33 papers →

potassium · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

82 papers: 71 positive, 11 negative or no effect

70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

78 papers more in this group

See all 82 papers →

nanoparticle · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

105 papers: 101 positive, 4 negative or no effect

100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

101 papers more in this group

See all 105 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

176 papers: 142 positive, 34 negative or no effect

141 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

172 papers more in this group

See all 176 papers →

phosphorus · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

226 papers: 198 positive, 28 negative or no effect

197 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

222 papers more in this group

See all 226 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.