Abstract
Maize, a crucial cereal crop in India, faces challenges like limited land and climate change. Fertilizers like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are essential for crop yields, but excessive use can cause eutrophication and nitrate pollution. Researchers are exploring slow-release fertilizers and nanotechnology-based solutions to improve nitrogen uptake efficiency. Slow-release fertilizers maintain nitrogen availability and control nitrification processes, while nanotechnology-based fertilizers release nitrogen only when needed, reducing emissions and leaching. Microorganisms like azophos can fix nitrogen, facilitate phosphorus uptake, and produce growth-promoting chemicals. The use of nano urea and beneficial microorganisms like azophos can boost maize production and yield. To investigate further, a field experiment was conducted at the Experimental Farm, Department of Agronomy, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu from July to October 2022 with a key objective of evaluating the partial supplement of different levels of nitrogen fertilizer in the form of conventional urea and nano urea along with the microbial inoculant azophos in hybrid maize (Zea mays L.). The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with ten treatments comprised of different levels of urea and nano urea along with azophos @ 4kg/ha with three replications. Among the nutrient management evaluated, all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8). Combining bulk urea and nano urea improved nitrogen use efficiency via metabolite production, enzyme activity stimulation, and microbial rhizosphere interactions significantly enhancing the yield attributes and yield.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T8 significantly influenced maize cob length, cob diameter and grains per cob.
- Treatment
- 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/hae0
- Interactor
- azophose0symbiont
- Outcome
- cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cobe0
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
e1“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T8 significantly influenced maize test weight, grain yield and stover yield.
- Treatment
- 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/hae0
- Interactor
- azophose0symbiont
- Outcome
- test weight, grain yield, stover yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
e1“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T8 significantly influenced maize harvest index.
- Treatment
- 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/hae0
- Interactor
- azophose0symbiont
- Outcome
- harvest indexe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
e1“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulk and nano urea together improved nitrogen use efficiency and yield.
- Treatment
- Combining bulk urea and nano ureae0
- Outcome
- nitrogen use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- via metabolite production, enzyme activity stimulation, and microbial rhizosphere interactionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combining bulk urea and nano urea improved nitrogen use efficiency via metabolite production, enzyme activity stimulation, and microbial rhizosphere interactions significantly enhancing the yield attributes and yield.”
e1“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulk and nano urea together significantly enhanced yield attributes and yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combining bulk urea and nano urea improved nitrogen use efficiency via metabolite production, enzyme activity stimulation, and microbial rhizosphere interactions significantly enhancing the yield attributes and yield.”
e1“all the yield attributes and yield of hybrid maize viz., cob length, cob diameter, number of grains/cob, test weight, grain yield, stover yield, and harvest index were significantly influenced by theapplication of 50 percent RDN through urea + 50 per cent RDN through nano urea + 100 percent RD of P and K through conventional fertilizers + azophos @ 4 kg/ha (T8).”
The same questions in other papers
nanoparticle · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →phosphorus · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →nitrogen · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
68 papers more in this group
See all 72 papers →fertilization · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
88 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
102 papers more in this group
See all 106 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
141 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
190 papers more in this group
See all 194 papers →nanoparticle · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
214 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
229 papers more in this group
See all 233 papers →potassium · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
290 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
316 papers more in this group
See all 320 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
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 papers →8 of 12 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.