Abstract
Water shortage and soil degradation are major challenges to agricultural production encountered in the semi-arid areas. The advantage of application of organic and biofertilizers in improving the soil productivity have been verified. However, there is still a lack of related research evaluating the effect of integrated fertilization measures on soil quality and crop productivity as well as their potential relationships under varying water supply levels. Herein, a two-year field study with two water levels (sufficient water, 220 mm; limited water, 60 mm) and five fertilization treatments (CK, no fertilizer; CF, chemical fertilizer ; CFB, bio-fertilizer combined with CF; CFO, organic fertilizer combined with 70 % CF; CFOB, bio-fertilizer combined with CFO) was conducted to evaluate the effects on grain yield, resource use efficiency and soil quality. The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply. Among different fertilization measures, CFOB was superior to other treatments both at sufficient and limited water supply, as it significantly improved the maize average yield (2022 and 2023), dry matter weight, N uptake, NUE and WP by 18.2–27.3 %, 9.2–31.2 %, 13.3–16.6 %, 38.9–62.3 %, 18.7–26.8 % compared with CF, respectively. Moreover, CFOB promoted the soil quality index (SQI) by improving the soil properties and consequently increased the grain yield. Accordingly, the integrated application of biofertilizer, organic and chemical fertilizer would be a sustainable fertilization strategy for improving soil quality and crop productivity, particularly in the semiarid sandy areas. Additionally, the results also revealed the underlying mechanisms of positive response between grain yield and SQI under varying water supply levels, which mainly attributing to the different key soil factors related to the grain yield. This study provided theoretical guidance for fertilization measures under varying water supply to improve soil quality and sustainable development of agriculture .
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Limited water supply decreased grain yield compared with sufficient water.
- Treatment
- limited water supplye0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- sufficient water supplye0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited water supply decreased dry matter weight compared with sufficient water.
- Treatment
- limited water supplye0
- Outcome
- dry matter weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- sufficient water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited water supply decreased nitrogen (N) uptake compared with sufficient water.
- Treatment
- limited water supplye0
- Outcome
- nitrogen (N) uptakee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- sufficient water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited water supply decreased N use efficiency compared with sufficient water.
- Treatment
- limited water supplye0
- Outcome
- N use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- sufficient water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited water supply decreased water productivity compared with sufficient water.
- Treatment
- limited water supplye0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- sufficient water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
Limited water supply decreased most soil properties compared with sufficient water.
- Treatment
- limited water supplye0
- Outcome
- most soil propertiese0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- sufficient water supplye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed that the limited water supply decreased the grain yield, dry matter weight, nitrogen (N) uptake, N use efficiency, water productivity and most soil properties compared with those under sufficient water supply”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB significantly improved maize average yield by 18.2–27.3 % versus CF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB was superior to other treatments both at sufficient and limited water supply, as it significantly improved the maize average yield (2022 and 2023), dry matter weight, N uptake, NUE and WP by 18.2–27.3 %, 9.2–31.2 %, 13.3–16.6 %, 38.9–62.3 %, 18.7–26.8 % compared with CF, respectively”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB significantly improved dry matter weight by 9.2–31.2 % versus CF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB was superior to other treatments both at sufficient and limited water supply, as it significantly improved the maize average yield (2022 and 2023), dry matter weight, N uptake, NUE and WP by 18.2–27.3 %, 9.2–31.2 %, 13.3–16.6 %, 38.9–62.3 %, 18.7–26.8 % compared with CF, respectively”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB significantly improved N uptake by 13.3–16.6 % versus CF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB was superior to other treatments both at sufficient and limited water supply, as it significantly improved the maize average yield (2022 and 2023), dry matter weight, N uptake, NUE and WP by 18.2–27.3 %, 9.2–31.2 %, 13.3–16.6 %, 38.9–62.3 %, 18.7–26.8 % compared with CF, respectively”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB significantly improved NUE by 38.9–62.3 % versus CF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB was superior to other treatments both at sufficient and limited water supply, as it significantly improved the maize average yield (2022 and 2023), dry matter weight, N uptake, NUE and WP by 18.2–27.3 %, 9.2–31.2 %, 13.3–16.6 %, 38.9–62.3 %, 18.7–26.8 % compared with CF, respectively”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB significantly improved WP by 18.7–26.8 % versus CF.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB was superior to other treatments both at sufficient and limited water supply, as it significantly improved the maize average yield (2022 and 2023), dry matter weight, N uptake, NUE and WP by 18.2–27.3 %, 9.2–31.2 %, 13.3–16.6 %, 38.9–62.3 %, 18.7–26.8 % compared with CF, respectively”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB improved soil quality index by improving soil properties.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB promoted the soil quality index (SQI) by improving the soil properties and consequently increased the grain yield”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
CFOB increased grain yield consequent to improved soil quality.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CFOB promoted the soil quality index (SQI) by improving the soil properties and consequently increased the grain yield”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend integrated biofertilizer, organic and chemical fertilizer for soil quality and crop productivity.
- Treatment
- integrated application of biofertilizer, organic and chemical fertilizere0
- Outcome
- sustainable fertilization strategye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the integrated application of biofertilizer, organic and chemical fertilizer would be a sustainable fertilization strategy for improving soil quality and crop productivity”
t0“Integrated application of fertilization increased maize (Zea mays L.) yield by improving soil quality, particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →irrigation · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 84 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
100 papers more in this group
See all 104 papers →irrigation · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
80 papers in the same direction as this paper · 208 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
285 papers more in this group
See all 289 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
320 papers more in this group
See all 324 papers →irrigation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
224 papers in the same direction as this paper · 791 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1,012 papers more in this group
See all 1,016 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.