Abstract
Side-depth fertilization (SDF) is a critical strategy to boost fertilizer use efficiency and crop production. Yet, the growth strategies of rice in response to soil nutrient changes brought by SDF have been rarely reported. To enrich the rice SDF technology, this study set up four treatments: no fertilization (CK), surface fertilization (D0), 5-cm side-deep application (D5), and 10-cm side-deep application (D10). The study compared the spatial distribution characteristics of fertilizer nutrients and rice roots in the soil, as well as photosynthetic and growth traits, yield, and fertilizer use efficiency across different treatments. The results indicated that, in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer. For root systems, SDF somewhat reduced the distribution of deep roots, with root weight and root-shoot ratio decreasing by 0.2% ∼ 28.2% and 5.0% ∼ 15.9%, respectively. For the canopy, SDF increased tillering by 8.42% ∼ 25.6%, net photosynthetic rate by 0.18% ∼ 16.86%. Strategic adjustments to the root systems and canopy under SDF treatment promote the accumulation of dry matter and the formation of yield in rice. Compared with D0, SDF increased the biomass by 10.6% ∼ 36.3%, and yields by 5.77% ∼ 21.35%. Additionally, it enhanced N recovery efficiency (NRE) by 20.0% ∼ 36.7% and P recovery efficiency (PRE) by 0.01% ∼ 22.0%. However, there was no significant difference in above-ground biomass, NRE, and PRE between the D10 and D5. But, compared with D5, D10 exhibited stronger nutrient retention, accompanied by lower root distribution in deeper soil layers and greater potential for fertilizer reduction.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Side-depth fertilization increased soil nitrogen and phosphorus in the tillage layer versus surface fertilization.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- SDFe0
- Outcome
- soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P)e0
- Direction
- enhancinge0
- Comparator
- D0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Side-depth fertilization reduced deep-root distribution.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe0
- Outcome
- distribution of deep rootse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDF somewhat reduced the distribution of deep roots”
e1“in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Root weight decreased by 0.2% ∼ 28.2%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe1
- Outcome
- root weighte0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Value
- 0.2% ∼ 28.2%e0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root weight and root-shoot ratio decreasing by 0.2% ∼ 28.2% and 5.0% ∼ 15.9%”
e1“in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Root-shoot ratio decreased by 5.0% ∼ 15.9%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe1
- Outcome
- root-shoot ratioe0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Value
- 5.0% ∼ 15.9%e0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root weight and root-shoot ratio decreasing by 0.2% ∼ 28.2% and 5.0% ∼ 15.9%”
e1“in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillering increased by 8.42% ∼ 25.6%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe0
- Outcome
- tilleringe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8.42% ∼ 25.6%e0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDF increased tillering by 8.42% ∼ 25.6%”
e1“in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Net photosynthetic rate increased by 0.18% ∼ 16.86%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe0
- Outcome
- net photosynthetic ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.18% ∼ 16.86%e0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDF increased tillering by 8.42% ∼ 25.6%, net photosynthetic rate by 0.18% ∼ 16.86%”
e1“in comparison to D0, SDF significantly altered the distribution of soil nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), enhancing their levels within the tillage layer.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
SDF root and canopy adjustments promoted dry-matter accumulation and yield formation.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- SDF treatmente0
- Outcome
- accumulation of dry matter and the formation of yielde0
- Qualifier
- Strategic adjustments to the root systems and canopye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Strategic adjustments to the root systems and canopy under SDF treatment promote the accumulation of dry matter and the formation of yield in rice.”
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass increased by 10.6% ∼ 36.3%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10.6% ∼ 36.3%e0
- Comparator
- D0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with D0, SDF increased the biomass by 10.6% ∼ 36.3%, and yields by 5.77% ∼ 21.35%.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increased by 5.77% ∼ 21.35%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.77% ∼ 21.35%e0
- Comparator
- D0e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with D0, SDF increased the biomass by 10.6% ∼ 36.3%, and yields by 5.77% ∼ 21.35%.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen recovery efficiency increased by 20.0% ∼ 36.7%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe1
- Outcome
- N recovery efficiency (NRE)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 20.0% ∼ 36.7%e0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it enhanced N recovery efficiency (NRE) by 20.0% ∼ 36.7% and P recovery efficiency (PRE) by 0.01% ∼ 22.0%.”
e1“Compared with D0, SDF increased the biomass by 10.6% ∼ 36.3%, and yields by 5.77% ∼ 21.35%.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus recovery efficiency increased by 0.01% ∼ 22.0%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- SDFe1
- Outcome
- P recovery efficiency (PRE)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 0.01% ∼ 22.0%e0
- Comparator
- D0e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it enhanced N recovery efficiency (NRE) by 20.0% ∼ 36.7% and P recovery efficiency (PRE) by 0.01% ∼ 22.0%.”
e1“Compared with D0, SDF increased the biomass by 10.6% ∼ 36.3%, and yields by 5.77% ∼ 21.35%.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
D10 and D5 did not significantly differ in above-ground biomass, NRE and PRE.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- D10e0
- Outcome
- above-ground biomass, NRE, and PREe0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- D5e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference in above-ground biomass, NRE, and PRE between the D10 and D5.”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
D10 retained nutrients more strongly than D5.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with D5, D10 exhibited stronger nutrient retention”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
D10 had less deep root distribution than D5.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- D10e0
- Outcome
- root distribution in deeper soil layerse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- D5e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with D5, D10 exhibited stronger nutrient retention, accompanied by lower root distribution in deeper soil layers”
t0“rice”
Claim · model-written summary
D10 showed greater potential for fertilizer reduction than D5.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- D10e0
- Outcome
- potential for fertilizer reductione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- D5e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with D5, D10 exhibited stronger nutrient retention, accompanied by lower root distribution in deeper soil layers and greater potential for fertilizer reduction.”
t0“rice”
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 · nutrient: efficiency · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
201 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
216 papers more in this group
See all 220 papers →fertilization · soil: chemistry · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
279 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
301 papers more in this group
See all 305 papers →fertilization · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
669 papers in the same direction as this paper · 81 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
755 papers more in this group
See all 759 papers →fertilization · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
3,182 papers in the same direction as this paper · 207 in the opposite direction · 65 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,451 papers more in this group
See all 3,455 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.