Abstract
Field study was conducted in Enderta and Hawzen districts of Tigray region on six farmers’ fields aimed at evaluating potassium and micro-nutrient effect on yield and yield components of the tested crop. The experiment comprised of eight treatments including control and recommended NP arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design with two replications. Phosphorus fertilizers were applied at planting, while the nitrogen fertilizer was applied in two splits. The micronutrients and Typrosine were applied in foliar forms. SAS version 9 statistical software was used for data analysis. The analyzed results depicted that Tef yield was increased with potassium and micro-nutrient application in both districts mathematically even though it was not consistent. In line to this, the highest grain and straw yields of Tef was recorded at recommended NP with application of 50 kg/ha K2SO4 and recommended NP with a foliar application of Typrosine, respectively. But this result was statistically similar with the recommended NP. Thus, application of additional fertilizer without yield increment is uneconomical rather than maximizing costs. Hence, potassium, copper, and zinc in the current sources were not Tef yield limiting nutrients in the study sites even though the soil statuses are low. On the other hand nitrogen and phosphorus were observed the Tef yield limiting nutrients in this study. For this reason maximizing the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers with detailed research on its level and their interactions, sources and application times is important to maximize the Tef productivity in the Vertisols of Enderta and Hawzen district.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium and micronutrient application mathematically increased tef yield in both districts, inconsistently.
- Taxon
- Tef
Eragrostis tefe0 - Treatment
- potassium and micro-nutrient applicatione0
- Outcome
- Tef yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- even though it was not consistente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tef yield was increased with potassium and micro-nutrient application in both districts mathematically even though it was not consistent.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield was highest with recommended NP plus 50 kg/ha K2SO4, but statistically similar to recommended NP.
- Taxon
- TefEragrostis tefe0
- Treatment
- recommended NP with application of 50 kg/ha K2SO4e0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- recommended NPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest grain and straw yields of Tef was recorded at recommended NP with application of 50 kg/ha K2SO4 and recommended NP with a foliar application of Typrosine, respectively. But this result was statistically similar with the recommended NP.”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw yield was highest with recommended NP plus foliar Typrosine, but statistically similar to recommended NP.
- Taxon
- TefEragrostis tefe0
- Treatment
- recommended NP with a foliar application of Typrosinee0
- Outcome
- straw yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- recommended NPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest grain and straw yields of Tef was recorded at recommended NP with application of 50 kg/ha K2SO4 and recommended NP with a foliar application of Typrosine, respectively. But this result was statistically similar with the recommended NP.”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium, copper and zinc in the current sources were not yield limiting at the study sites.
- Taxon
- TefEragrostis tefe0
- Outcome
- not Tef yield limiting nutrientse0
- Qualifier
- even though the soil statuses are lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“potassium, copper, and zinc in the current sources were not Tef yield limiting nutrients in the study sites even though the soil statuses are low.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen and phosphorus were observed to limit tef yield.
- Taxon
- TefEragrostis tefe0
- Outcome
- Tef yield limiting nutrientse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nitrogen and phosphorus were observed the Tef yield limiting nutrients in this study.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend maximizing nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use with further research on levels, interactions, sources and timing.
- Taxon
- TefEragrostis tefe0
- Outcome
- maximizing the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizerse0
- Setting
- Vertisols of Enderta and Hawzen districte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximizing the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers with detailed research on its level and their interactions, sources and application times is important to maximize the Tef productivity in the Vertisols of Enderta and Hawzen district.”
The same questions in other papers
potassium · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
application · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
nanoparticle · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.