Paper · 1987 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

Mineral composition and responses to fertilizer of wheat grown on a limed and deep-ripped soil in north-eastern Victoria

DR Coventry; GR Morrison; TG Reeves; et al.

12
claims
22
verbatim quotes
16
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The nutrient requirements of wheat grown on a soil ameliorated with lime and deep ripping were studied in a field experiment over 5 seasons in northeastern Victoria. Phosphorus (P) fertiliser was required when this soil was limed, although the lime treatment may have increased P uptake (P x lime interaction). The nitrogen (N) concentration in wheat foliage was increased with both lime and deep ripping. It is likely that the availability of N will be the most important factor for sustaining high yields following soil treatment. Molybdenum (Mo) fertiliser (62 g Mo ha-1) increased grain yield in 2 seasons. Molybdenum fertiliser increased grain weight by an average of 4.4% over 3 years, and also the N content of grain in the absence of lime, indicating that a deficiency of available Mo in the soil was affecting the assimilation of N in the wheat. The magnesium (Mg) concentration in the wheat foliage was very low (0.07-0.10%) without soil treatment, but there was no grain yield response when Mg fertiliser (10.5 kg Mg ha-1) was applied in the absence of lime. Lime and ripping both resulted in big increases in manganese (Mn) concentrations in the foliage. Calcium (Ca) and copper (Cu) concentrations were little affected and zinc (Zn) was not affected by lime (Ca, 0.35-0 55%; Cu, 7-20 ¦g g-1; Zn, 50-60 ¦g g-1 at 50 days after emergence), and each nutrient appeared to be adequate for wheat. The concentration of Mn in the foliage was high without lime, but did not approach published figures for critical toxicity concentrations. Liming the soil greatly reduced the manganese concentration.

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 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus fertilizer was required on limed soil.

Treatment
limede0
Outcome
Phosphorus (P) fertiliser was requirede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phosphorus (P) fertiliser was required when this soil was limed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 166–229 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime may have increased phosphorus uptake.

Treatment
lime treatmente0
Outcome
P uptakee0
Direction
increasede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the lime treatment may have increased P uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 240–286 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime and ripping each increased nitrogen concentration in wheat foliage.

Treatment
lime and deep rippinge0
Outcome
nitrogen (N) concentration in wheat foliagee0
Direction
increasede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The nitrogen (N) concentration in wheat foliage was increased with both lime and deep ripping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 311–404 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Molybdenum fertilizer increased grain yield in two seasons.

Treatment
Molybdenum (Mo) fertiliser (62 g Mo ha-1)e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2 seasonse0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Molybdenum (Mo) fertiliser (62 g Mo ha-1) increased grain yield in 2 seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 533–609 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Molybdenum fertilizer raised grain weight by 4.4% over three years.

Treatment
Molybdenum fertilisere0
Outcome
grain weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
4.4%e0
Qualifier
over 3 yearse0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Molybdenum fertiliser increased grain weight by an average of 4.4% over 3 years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 611–690 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Molybdenum fertilizer increased grain nitrogen content without lime.

Outcome
N content of graine0
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Qualifier
absence of limee0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“also the N content of grain in the absence of lime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 696–746 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated wheat foliage had very low magnesium concentration.

Outcome
magnesium (Mg) concentration in the wheat foliagee0
Value
0.07-0.10%e0
Qualifier
without soil treatmente0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The magnesium (Mg) concentration in the wheat foliage was very low (0.07-0.10%) without soil treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 855–957 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Magnesium fertilizer did not affect grain yield without lime.

Treatment
Mg fertiliser (10.5 kg Mg ha-1)e0
Outcome
grain yield responsee0
Direction
noe0
Qualifier
absence of limee0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no grain yield response when Mg fertiliser (10.5 kg Mg ha-1) was applied in the absence of lime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 963–1068 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime and ripping both greatly increased foliage manganese.

Treatment
Lime and rippinge0
Outcome
manganese (Mn) concentrations in the foliagee0
Direction
increasese0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Lime and ripping both resulted in big increases in manganese (Mn) concentrations in the foliage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1070–1165 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lime had little effect on calcium and copper and no effect on zinc concentrations.

Treatment
limee0
Outcome
Calcium (Ca) and copper (Cu) concentrationse0
Direction
little affectede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Calcium (Ca) and copper (Cu) concentrations were little affected and zinc (Zn) was not affected by lime”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1270 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliage manganese was high without lime but below published critical toxicity levels.

Outcome
concentration of Mn in the foliagee0
Qualifier
without limee0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The concentration of Mn in the foliage was high without lime, but did not approach published figures for critical toxicity concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1404–1541 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liming greatly reduced manganese concentration.

Treatment
Liming the soile0
Outcome
manganese concentratione0
Direction
reducede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Liming the soil greatly reduced the manganese concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1543–1602 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–62 · show in text ↑

molybdenum atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

26 papers: 19 positive, 7 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

magnesium atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

36 papers: 27 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
    Combined magnesium and low manganese deficiency decreased wheat dry weight and seed yield.

    Influence of changes in manganese and magnesium supply on some aspects of wheat physiology · 1994 · compared with low manganese supply

    Opposite directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

lime · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 14 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

lime · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

55 papers: 46 positive, 9 negative or no effect

45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

51 papers more in this group

See all 55 papers →

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

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 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.