Paper · 2006 · Journal of Agronomy

The Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilization on Growth, Yield and Quality of Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)

Hani A. Eltelib .; Muna A. Hamad .; Eltom E. Ali .

9
claims
27
verbatim quotes
65
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In this study the effect of nitrogen and phosphorus application on growth, forage yield and quality of fodder maize was studied. The variety used was Giza 2. Nitrogen was applied at the rates of (0, 40 and 80 kg N ha-1), while phosphorus levels were (0, 50 and 100 kg P2O5 ha-1). Parameters studied were plant height, number of leaves per plant, stem diameter and Leaf Area Index (LAI). Moreover days to 50% tasseling, dry matter yield, crude protein and crude fiber contents were studied. Results showed that addition of nitrogen fertilizer significantly increased plant height, stem diameter and LAI. Phosphorus fertilization has no significant effect on the growth attributes. Application of nitrogen allowed the crop to reach 50% tasseling earlier. Phosphorus on the other hand has no effect on days to 50% tasseling. Nitrogen fertilization significantly increased the forage dry matter yield. In contrast phosphorus has no effect on the dry matter yield. Nitrogen was significantly increased the protein content of forage maize, on the other hand phosphorus has no effect on the crude protein content. Neither nitrogen nor phosphorus has a significant effect on the crude fiber content.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilizer significantly increased plant height, stem diameter and LAI.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
nitrogen fertilizere0
Outcome
plant height, stem diameter and LAIe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Results showed that addition of nitrogen fertilizer significantly increased plant height, stem diameter and LAI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–601 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus fertilization had no significant effect on growth attributes.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
Phosphorus fertilizatione0
Outcome
growth attributese0
Direction
no significant effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phosphorus fertilization has no significant effect on the growth attributes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–678 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen application brought 50% tasseling earlier.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
nitrogene0
Outcome
50% tasselinge0
Direction
earliere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of nitrogen allowed the crop to reach 50% tasseling earlier”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–751 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus had no effect on time to 50% tasseling.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
Phosphoruse0
Outcome
days to 50% tasselinge0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phosphorus on the other hand has no effect on days to 50% tasseling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 753–820 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen significantly increased forage dry matter yield.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
forage dry matter yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen fertilization significantly increased the forage dry matter yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 822–896 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus had no effect on dry matter yield.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
phosphoruse0
Outcome
dry matter yielde0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In contrast phosphorus has no effect on the dry matter yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–958 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen significantly increased forage protein content.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
Nitrogene0
Outcome
protein contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen was significantly increased the protein content of forage maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 960–1032 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phosphorus had no effect on crude protein content.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
phosphoruse0
Outcome
crude protein contente0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“phosphorus has no effect on the crude protein content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1052–1105 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Neither nitrogen nor phosphorus significantly affected crude fiber content.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Material
Giza 2e1
Treatment
nitrogen nor phosphoruse0
Outcome
crude fiber contente0
Direction
Neithere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Neither nitrogen nor phosphorus has a significant effect on the crude fiber content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1190 · show in text ↑
t0

“Forage Maize (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–110 · show in text ↑
e1

“The variety used was Giza 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–156 · show in text ↑

phosphorus · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

26 papers: 23 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

nitrogen · phenology · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

44 papers: 29 positive, 15 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

phosphorus · phenology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 6 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

phosphorus · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 16 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

nitrogen · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

72 papers: 59 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

68 papers more in this group

See all 72 papers →

nitrogen · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

181 papers: 164 positive, 17 negative or no effect

163 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

177 papers more in this group

See all 181 papers →

phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

627 papers: 549 positive, 78 negative or no effect

77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 549 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

623 papers more in this group

See all 627 papers →

fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,365 papers: 1,196 positive, 169 negative or no effect

1,195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 149 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

1,361 papers more in this group

See all 1,365 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.