Abstract
The combination of controlled-release urea (CRU) and conventional urea (CU) has become an important practical strategy to simultaneously increase rice yield, economic benefits, and nitrogen (N) use efficiency (NUE) with one-time fertilization management. However, the method by which the combination of CRU and CU intervenes with rice yield, economic benefits, and NUE in saline–alkali paddy fields has not yet been established. Accordingly, a two-year field experiment was set up with a total of seven treatments (CK, no N application; CUF, conventional urea split applications; RCUF, CUF treatment with 20% N reduction; CRBF1, 50%CRU + 50%CU one-time base application; CRBF2, 70%CRU + 30%CU one-time base application; RCRBF1, CRBF1 treatment with 20% N reduction; RCRBF2, CRBF2 treatment with 20% N reduction). The results showed that the controlled-release blended fertilizer (CRBF) treatments significantly increased the yield, economic benefits, and NUE over the two years. The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively. The RCRBF1 and RCRBF2 treatments maintained rice yields and significantly increased NUE compared to the CUF treatment. The analysis of yield components indicated that the greater rice yields of the CRBF were mainly attributed to increased panicle numbers and spikelet numbers per m2. Furthermore, the post-anthesis dry matter, N accumulation, flag SPAD values, flag photosynthetic rates, and soil ammonium nitrogen content were higher during the grain-filling stage of the CRBF treatments compared to the CUF treatments. Compared with the CUF treatment, the CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments increased economic benefits by 8.74–11.16% and 17.14–17.41%. Therefore, the combination of CRU and CU can increase rice yield, economic benefits, and NUE in saline–alkali paddy fields. Moreover, it is recommended to apply CRU and CU at a ratio of 7:3 in a single basal application as a green and efficient alternative N management strategy for saline–alkali paddy fields. The results provide a scientific basis for N management strategies in saline–alkali paddy fields.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF1 increased rice yield by 5.10–6.77% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae1 - Treatment
- CRBF1e1
- Outcome
- rice yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 5.10–6.77%e1
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF2 increased rice yield by 10.41–11.04% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF2e1
- Outcome
- rice yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 10.41–11.04%e1
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF1 increased N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF1e1
- Outcome
- N recovery efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 13.30–17.40%e1
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF2 increased N recovery efficiency by 21.69–26.75% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF2e1
- Outcome
- N recovery efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 21.69–26.75%e1
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF1 increased N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF1e1
- Outcome
- N agronomic efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 10.40–13.91%e1
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF2 increased N agronomic efficiency by 21.26–22.10% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF2e1
- Outcome
- N agronomic efficiencye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 21.26–22.10%e1
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF1 increased economic benefits by 8.74–11.16% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF1e2
- Outcome
- economic benefitse2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 8.74–11.16%e2
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e2“Compared with the CUF treatment, the CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments increased economic benefits by 8.74–11.16% and 17.14–17.41%”
Claim · model-written summary
CRBF2 increased economic benefits by 17.14–17.41% compared with CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- CRBF2e2
- Outcome
- economic benefitse2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 17.14–17.41%e2
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e2“Compared with the CUF treatment, the CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments increased economic benefits by 8.74–11.16% and 17.14–17.41%”
Claim · model-written summary
RCRBF1 and RCRBF2 maintained rice yields relative to CUF with 20% less N.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- RCRBF1 and RCRBF2e3
- Outcome
- rice yieldse3
- Direction
- maintainede3
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e3“The RCRBF1 and RCRBF2 treatments maintained rice yields and significantly increased NUE compared to the CUF treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
RCRBF1 and RCRBF2 significantly increased NUE relative to CUF.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Treatment
- RCRBF1 and RCRBF2e3
- Outcome
- NUEe3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Comparator
- CUF treatmente3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e3“The RCRBF1 and RCRBF2 treatments maintained rice yields and significantly increased NUE compared to the CUF treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater rice yields under CRBF were mainly attributed to increased panicle and spikelet numbers per m2.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae4
- Treatment
- CRBFe4
- Outcome
- panicle numbers and spikelet numbers per m2e4
- Direction
- increasede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“the greater rice yields of the CRBF were mainly attributed to increased panicle numbers and spikelet numbers per m2”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-anthesis dry matter, N accumulation and flag SPAD values were higher under CRBF than CUF during grain filling.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Organ / stage
- grain-filling stagee5
- Treatment
- CRBF treatmentse5
- Outcome
- post-anthesis dry matter, N accumulation, flag SPAD valuese5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- CUF treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e5“the post-anthesis dry matter, N accumulation, flag SPAD values, flag photosynthetic rates, and soil ammonium nitrogen content were higher during the grain-filling stage of the CRBF treatments compared to the CUF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Flag photosynthetic rates were higher under CRBF than CUF during grain filling.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Organ / stage
- grain-filling stagee5
- Treatment
- CRBF treatmentse5
- Outcome
- flag photosynthetic ratese5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- CUF treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e5“the post-anthesis dry matter, N accumulation, flag SPAD values, flag photosynthetic rates, and soil ammonium nitrogen content were higher during the grain-filling stage of the CRBF treatments compared to the CUF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil ammonium nitrogen content was higher under CRBF than CUF during grain filling.
- Organ / stage
- grain-filling stagee5
- Treatment
- CRBF treatmentse5
- Outcome
- soil ammonium nitrogen contente5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- CUF treatmentse5
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e5“the post-anthesis dry matter, N accumulation, flag SPAD values, flag photosynthetic rates, and soil ammonium nitrogen content were higher during the grain-filling stage of the CRBF treatments compared to the CUF treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend applying CRU and CU at a 7:3 ratio in a single basal application in saline–alkali paddies.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae1
- Outcome
- apply CRU and CU at a ratio of 7:3 in a single basal applicatione6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The CRBF1 and CRBF2 treatments significantly increased the rice yield by 5.10–6.77% and 10.41–11.04%, N recovery efficiency by 13.30–17.40% and 21.69–26.75%, and N agronomic efficiency by 10.40–13.91% and 21.26–22.10% compared to the CUF treatment, respectively”
e6“it is recommended to apply CRU and CU at a ratio of 7:3 in a single basal application”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · physiology: photosynthesis · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
120 papers more in this group
See all 124 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
931 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
989 papers more in this group
See all 993 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.