Abstract
The decline in soil nutrients in Ethiopia, particularly in Western Amhara, is causing low crop productivity. Some researchers have argued that the application of K, S, Zn, and B in blended, individual, and complex forms affects crop yield. Identification of the prime yield-limiting nutrient is the key to solvesoil nutrient problems. A field experiment was conducted at Burie-Wemeberema, Debere Elias, Gozamen and Gonji Qolela districts of Western Amhara in the 2022 cropping season. A composite soil sample was taken at a depth of 0-20 cm to determine soil chemical properties. Bread wheat and tef were used as a test crop. The gross plot sizes were 4m x 3m and the spacing between blocks and rows was 1.0 and 0.2 m, respectively. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications and comprised of nine treatments: control, NPKSZnB-blended, NPKZnB, NPKSB, NPKSZnB, NPSZnB, NP, NPKSZnB-individually applied, and NPSZnB-compound+K. R programming software version 4.2.2 was used for data analysis, and treatment means were separated at P < 0.05 using the LSD test. The analysis of variance results showed that nitrogen and phosphorus are the most yield-limiting nutrients so far in the study area. Besides, omissions of potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron did not show a significant (P < 0.05) effect on bread wheat and tef grain yield reduction as compared to the applied recommended nitrogen and phosphorus at all landscape positions of all study sites. Blended and compound nutrients also didn't show a significant grain yield advantage as compared to the applied NP nutrients. Applied potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron nutrients in blended, individual, and compound forms did not increase wheat and tef grain and biomass yields in all study areas. Currently, additions of K, S, Zn, and B nutrients in the fertilizer package do not have a significant grain yield advantage as compared to the recommended NP nutrients. We believe the present information on fertilizers in blended, compound, and individual forms is insufficient to draw any concrete conclusions. Therefore, we suggested further research to confirm which form of fertilizer and nutrient source is better for future crop production.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen and phosphorus were the principal yield limiting nutrients.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“nitrogen and phosphorus are the most yield-limiting nutrients so far in the study area”
Claim · model-written summary
Omitting K, S, Zn, and B did not significantly reduce bread wheat grain yield compared with recommended N and P.
- Taxon
- bread wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- omissions of potassium, sulfur, zinc, and borone0
- Outcome
- grain yield reductione0
- Direction
- did not show a significante0
- Comparator
- applied recommended nitrogen and phosphoruse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“omissions of potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron did not show a significant (P < 0.05) effect on bread wheat and tef grain yield reduction as compared to the applied recommended nitrogen and phosphorus”
Claim · model-written summary
Omitting K, S, Zn, and B did not significantly reduce tef grain yield compared with recommended N and P.
- Taxon
- tef
Eragrostis tefe0 - Treatment
- omissions of potassium, sulfur, zinc, and borone0
- Outcome
- grain yield reductione0
- Direction
- did not show a significante0
- Comparator
- applied recommended nitrogen and phosphoruse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“omissions of potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron did not show a significant (P < 0.05) effect on bread wheat and tef grain yield reduction as compared to the applied recommended nitrogen and phosphorus”
Claim · model-written summary
Blended and compound nutrients showed no significant grain yield advantage over NP.
- Treatment
- Blended and compound nutrientse0
- Outcome
- grain yield advantagee0
- Direction
- didn't show a significante0
- Comparator
- applied NP nutrientse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Blended and compound nutrients also didn't show a significant grain yield advantage as compared to the applied NP nutrients”
Claim · model-written summary
Added K, S, Zn, and B did not increase wheat grain and biomass yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Applied potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron nutrientse0
- Outcome
- grain and biomass yieldse0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applied potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron nutrients in blended, individual, and compound forms did not increase wheat and tef grain and biomass yields in all study areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Added K, S, Zn, and B did not increase tef grain and biomass yields.
- Taxon
- tefEragrostis tefe0
- Treatment
- Applied potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron nutrientse0
- Outcome
- grain and biomass yieldse0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applied potassium, sulfur, zinc, and boron nutrients in blended, individual, and compound forms did not increase wheat and tef grain and biomass yields in all study areas”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest further fertilizer source and form research for future crop production.
- Outcome
- further research to confirm which form of fertilizer and nutrient source is bettere0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“we suggested further research to confirm which form of fertilizer and nutrient source is better for future crop production”
The same questions in other papers
boron atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 62 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →sulfur atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 124 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
144 papers more in this group
See all 148 papers →zinc atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
54 papers in the same direction as this paper · 456 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
507 papers more in this group
See all 511 papers →potassium · yield · Eragrostis tef (tef)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
potassium · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 227 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
253 papers more in this group
See all 257 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.