Abstract
Abstract The growing popularity of nano-fertilization around the world for enhancing yield and nutrient use efficiency has been realized, however its influence on soil microbial structure is not fully understood. The purpose of carrying out this study was to assess the combined effect of nano and conventional fertilizers on the soil biological indicators and crop yield in a wheat–maize system. The results indicate that the at par grain yield of wheat and maize was obtained with application of 75% of recommended nitrogen (N) with full dose of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) through conventional fertilizers along with nano-N (nano-urea) or nano-N plus nano-Zn sprays and N 100 PK i.e. business as usual (recommended dose of fertilizer). Important soil microbial property like microbial biomass carbon was found statistically similar with nano fertilizer-based management (N 75 PK + nano-N, and N 75 PK + nano-N + nano-Zn) and conventional management (N 100 PK), during both wheat and maize seasons. The experimental data indicated that the application of foliar spray of nano-fertilizers along with 75% N as basal is a sustainable nutrient management approach with respect to growth, yield and rhizosphere biological activity. Furthermore, two foliar sprays of nano-N or nano-N + nano-Zn curtailed N requirement by 25%, furthermore enhanced soil microbial diversity and the microbial community structure. The specific microbial groups, including Actinobacteria , Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteria , were present in abundance and were positively correlated with wheat and maize yield and soil microbial biomass carbon. Thus, one of the best nutrient management approaches for sustaining productivity and maintaining sound microbial diversity in wheat–maize rotation is the combined use of nano-fertilizers and conventional fertilizers.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-N with 75% conventional N gave wheat and maize grain yield at par with full conventional fertilizer.
- Taxon
- wheat–maize
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- 75% of recommended nitrogen (N) with full dose of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) through conventional fertilizers along with nano-N (nano-urea)e0
- Outcome
- grain yield of wheat and maizee0
- Direction
- at pare0
- Comparator
- N 100 PKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“the at par grain yield of wheat and maize was obtained with application of 75% of recommended nitrogen (N) with full dose of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) through conventional fertilizers along with nano-N (nano-urea) or nano-N plus nano-Zn sprays and N 100 PK”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-N plus nano-Zn with 75% conventional N gave wheat and maize grain yield at par with full conventional fertilizer.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- nano-N plus nano-Zn sprayse0
- Outcome
- grain yield of wheat and maizee0
- Direction
- at pare0
- Comparator
- N 100 PKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“the at par grain yield of wheat and maize was obtained with application of 75% of recommended nitrogen (N) with full dose of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) through conventional fertilizers along with nano-N (nano-urea) or nano-N plus nano-Zn sprays and N 100 PK”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-N management had statistically similar microbial biomass carbon to conventional management.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N 75 PK + nano-Ne0
- Outcome
- microbial biomass carbone0
- Direction
- statistically similare0
- Comparator
- N 100 PKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“microbial biomass carbon was found statistically similar with nano fertilizer-based management (N 75 PK + nano-N, and N 75 PK + nano-N + nano-Zn) and conventional management (N 100 PK), during both wheat and maize seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-N plus nano-Zn management had statistically similar microbial biomass carbon to conventional management.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- N 75 PK + nano-N + nano-Zne0
- Outcome
- microbial biomass carbone0
- Direction
- statistically similare0
- Comparator
- N 100 PKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“microbial biomass carbon was found statistically similar with nano fertilizer-based management (N 75 PK + nano-N, and N 75 PK + nano-N + nano-Zn) and conventional management (N 100 PK), during both wheat and maize seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Two nano-N sprays curtailed N requirement by 25%.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- two foliar sprays of nano-Ne0
- Outcome
- N requiremente0
- Direction
- curtailede0
- Value
- 25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“two foliar sprays of nano-N or nano-N + nano-Zn curtailed N requirement by 25%”
Claim · model-written summary
Two nano-N plus nano-Zn sprays curtailed N requirement by 25%.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- nano-N + nano-Zne0
- Outcome
- N requiremente0
- Direction
- curtailede0
- Value
- 25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“two foliar sprays of nano-N or nano-N + nano-Zn curtailed N requirement by 25%”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano fertilizer sprays enhanced soil microbial diversity and community structure.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Treatment
- two foliar sprays of nano-N or nano-N + nano-Zne0
- Outcome
- soil microbial diversity and the microbial community structuree0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“two foliar sprays of nano-N or nano-N + nano-Zn curtailed N requirement by 25%, furthermore enhanced soil microbial diversity and the microbial community structure”
Claim · model-written summary
Actinobacteria, Bacteroidia and Proteobacteria were abundant in the system.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Interactor
- ActinobacteriaActinomycetotae0other
- Outcome
- Actinobacteria , Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteria , were present in abundancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“Actinobacteria , Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteria , were present in abundance”
Claim · model-written summary
Abundant microbial groups correlated positively with wheat and maize yield.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Interactor
- ActinobacteriaActinomycetotae0other
- Outcome
- wheat and maize yielde0
- Direction
- positively correlatede0
- Qualifier
- Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteriae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“Actinobacteria , Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteria , were present in abundance and were positively correlated with wheat and maize yield and soil microbial biomass carbon”
Claim · model-written summary
Abundant microbial groups correlated positively with soil microbial biomass carbon.
- Taxon
- wheat–maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Interactor
- ActinobacteriaActinomycetotae0other
- Outcome
- soil microbial biomass carbone0
- Direction
- positively correlatede0
- Qualifier
- Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteriae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat–maize”
e0“Actinobacteria , Bacteroidia , and Proteobacteria , were present in abundance and were positively correlated with wheat and maize yield and soil microbial biomass carbon”
The same questions in other papers
application · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →nanoparticle · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 215 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
229 papers more in this group
See all 233 papers →potassium · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 227 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
253 papers more in this group
See all 257 papers →nanoparticle · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 242 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
256 papers more in this group
See all 260 papers →potassium · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 291 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
316 papers more in this group
See all 320 papers →phosphorus · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 524 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
568 papers more in this group
See all 572 papers →phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 549 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 papers →application · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 575 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
625 papers more in this group
See all 629 papers →8 of 16 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.