Abstract
Abstract Phosphorus (P) is the main limiting nutrient in agriculture. Most of the P fertilizers applied to the soil remain ineffective because of the weak movement and transfer of P in the soil. Current agricultural production requires large amounts of P fertilizers, leading to the accumulation of residual P in the soil and serious ecological problems. Fixation of P is a vital reason for limited fertilizer effectiveness. Therefore, improving soil P effectiveness is the key to reducing soil P accumulation. This study explored the effects of different water‐soluble P fertilizers on maize yield and economic benefits by comparing the relationships between soil P distribution and P absorption and utilization of maize in calcareous soil of Xinjiang province in China. The main results indicated that (1) the drip application of ammonium polyphosphate (APP) and urea phosphate (UP) was more beneficial for increasing the total P content in the deep soil layer; the drip application of APP was beneficial in increasing the available P content of the deep soil layer. (2) Dripping acid fertilizer was more conducive to reducing soil acidity and alkalinity (pH). (3) The application of different P fertilizers favoured the accumulation of P in all organs of maize, among which APP and UP were the most effective since they increased accumulation by 75.8% and 60.4% (at the flowering stage) and 98.2% and 62.3% (at the maturity stage), respectively, compared with CK (without P fertilizer). (4) pH was the main factor affecting P uptake and transformation, and the drip application of P fertilizer had the most significant effect on pH. (5) The application of different water‐soluble P fertilizers increased maize yield and economic benefits. Among the five water‐soluble P fertilizers selected in this study, APP had the greatest economic benefits, followed by UP and monoammonium phosphate (MAP); they increased yields by 31.6%, 24.5%, and 22.0%, respectively, compared with CK.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed public-domain. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Drip application of APP and UP was more beneficial for increasing total P content in the deep soil layer.
- Treatment
- drip application of ammonium polyphosphate (APP) and urea phosphate (UP)e1
- Outcome
- total P content in the deep soil layere1
- Direction
- increasinge1
- Setting
- calcareous soil of Xinjiang province in Chinae2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the drip application of ammonium polyphosphate (APP) and urea phosphate (UP) was more beneficial for increasing the total P content in the deep soil layer”
e2“calcareous soil of Xinjiang province in China”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip application of APP increased available P content of the deep soil layer.
- Treatment
- drip application of APPe1
- Outcome
- available P content of the deep soil layere1
- Direction
- increasinge1
- Setting
- calcareous soil of Xinjiang province in Chinae2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the drip application of APP was beneficial in increasing the available P content of the deep soil layer”
e2“calcareous soil of Xinjiang province in China”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Dripping acid fertilizer was more conducive to reducing soil acidity and alkalinity (pH).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Dripping acid fertilizer was more conducive to reducing soil acidity and alkalinity (pH)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
APP increased P accumulation in maize at the flowering stage by 75.8% compared with CK.
- Organ / stage
- flowering stagee1
- Treatment
- APPe1
- Outcome
- accumulatione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 75.8%e1
- Comparator
- CK (without P fertilizer)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“APP and UP were the most effective since they increased accumulation by 75.8% and 60.4% (at the flowering stage) and 98.2% and 62.3% (at the maturity stage), respectively, compared with CK (without P fertilizer)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
UP increased P accumulation in maize at the flowering stage by 60.4% compared with CK.
- Organ / stage
- flowering stagee1
- Treatment
- UPe1
- Outcome
- accumulatione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 60.4%e1
- Comparator
- CK (without P fertilizer)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“APP and UP were the most effective since they increased accumulation by 75.8% and 60.4% (at the flowering stage) and 98.2% and 62.3% (at the maturity stage), respectively, compared with CK (without P fertilizer)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
APP increased P accumulation in maize at the maturity stage by 98.2% compared with CK.
- Organ / stage
- maturity stagee1
- Treatment
- APPe1
- Outcome
- accumulatione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 98.2%e1
- Comparator
- CK (without P fertilizer)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“APP and UP were the most effective since they increased accumulation by 75.8% and 60.4% (at the flowering stage) and 98.2% and 62.3% (at the maturity stage), respectively, compared with CK (without P fertilizer)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
UP increased P accumulation in maize at the maturity stage by 62.3% compared with CK.
- Organ / stage
- maturity stagee1
- Treatment
- UPe1
- Outcome
- accumulatione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 62.3%e1
- Comparator
- CK (without P fertilizer)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“APP and UP were the most effective since they increased accumulation by 75.8% and 60.4% (at the flowering stage) and 98.2% and 62.3% (at the maturity stage), respectively, compared with CK (without P fertilizer)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
APP increased maize yield by 31.6% compared with CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“they increased yields by 31.6%, 24.5%, and 22.0%, respectively, compared with CK”
e3“APP had the greatest economic benefits, followed by UP and monoammonium phosphate (MAP)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
UP increased maize yield by 24.5% compared with CK.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“they increased yields by 31.6%, 24.5%, and 22.0%, respectively, compared with CK”
e3“APP had the greatest economic benefits, followed by UP and monoammonium phosphate (MAP)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Monoammonium phosphate increased maize yield by 22.0% compared with CK.
- Treatment
- monoammonium phosphate (MAP)e3
- Outcome
- yieldse2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 22.0%e2
- Comparator
- CKe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“they increased yields by 31.6%, 24.5%, and 22.0%, respectively, compared with CK”
e3“APP had the greatest economic benefits, followed by UP and monoammonium phosphate (MAP)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
APP had the greatest economic benefits among the water-soluble P fertilizers tested.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“APP had the greatest economic benefits, followed by UP and monoammonium phosphate (MAP)”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
pH was the main factor affecting P uptake and transformation in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“pH was the main factor affecting P uptake and transformation”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip application of P fertilizer had a significant effect on pH.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“the drip application of P fertilizer had the most significant effect on pH”
t0“utilization of phosphorus in maize”
The same questions in other papers
ammonium polyphosphate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
ammonium dihydrogen phosphate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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 →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 →phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 69 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.