Paper · 2005 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

The effect of biosolids on cereals in central New South Wales, Australia. 1. Crop growth and yield

J. L. Cooper

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
16
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Two forms of biosolids, with and without lime, were applied to acid soils at 2 sites in central New South Wales. Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites to determine the effect of biosolids on crop growth and yield. The forms of biosolids used were dewatered sewage sludge cake, and N-Viro Soil which is a lime amended sewage sludge. Dewatered sewage sludge cake was applied at rates of 0, 6, 12 and 24 dry Mg/ha, and N-Viro soil at 0, 1.5, 3.0 and 4.5 dry Mg/ha. Biosolids produced grain yield increases of over 50% at both sites, with the largest yield increases at the highest rate of dewatered sewage sludge. Continued cropping at 1 of the sites showed that significant yield increases were still obtained 3 years after the initial application. The addition of lime and N-Viro Soil raised soil pH, and produced small but long lasting yield increases. However, the main benefit of biosolids seems to have come from the nutrients they supplied rather than changes in soil pH.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biosolids increased grain yield by over 50% at both sites.

Taxon
Wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee2
Treatment
Biosolidse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
over 50%e0
Setting
both sitese0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Biosolids produced grain yield increases of over 50% at both sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–541 · show in text ↑
e2

“Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–163 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest rate of dewatered sewage sludge gave the largest grain yield increase.

Taxon
Wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee2
Treatment
highest rate of dewatered sewage sludgee0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
largeste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with the largest yield increases at the highest rate of dewatered sewage sludge”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 543–622 · show in text ↑
e2

“Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–163 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield increases persisted three years after application at one site.

Taxon
Wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee2
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
3 yearse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significant yield increases were still obtained 3 years after the initial application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 673–758 · show in text ↑
e2

“Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–163 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime and N-Viro Soil raised soil pH.

Taxon
Wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee2
Treatment
lime and N-Viro Soile0
Outcome
soil pHe0
Direction
raisede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The addition of lime and N-Viro Soil raised soil pH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 760–811 · show in text ↑
e2

“Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–163 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime and N-Viro Soil produced small, lasting yield increases.

Taxon
Wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee2
Treatment
lime and N-Viro Soile0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Qualifier
small but long lastinge0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The addition of lime and N-Viro Soil raised soil pH, and produced small but long lasting yield increases”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 760–864 · show in text ↑
e2

“Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–163 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attributed the main biosolids benefit to supplied nutrients.

Taxon
Wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee2
Treatment
biosolidse0
Outcome
main benefite0
Qualifier
nutrients they supplied rather than changes in soil pHe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
x Triticosecale
×Triticosecale · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMiquel Pujol Palol · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the main benefit of biosolids seems to have come from the nutrients they supplied rather than changes in soil pH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 875–987 · show in text ↑
e2

“Wheat and triticale were then grown on these sites”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 113–163 · show in text ↑

lime · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

lime · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 30 positive, 1 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

lime · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

173 papers: 140 positive, 33 negative or no effect

139 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

169 papers more in this group

See all 173 papers →

organic · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

322 papers: 281 positive, 41 negative or no effect

280 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

318 papers more in this group

See all 322 papers →

organic · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.