Paper · 2018 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Effect of Soil Test Crop Response Basis Integrated Nitrogen Management on Growth and Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Manish Kakraliya; Rajesh Singh

6
claims
11
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the rabi season of 2017 in wheat crop (var. HUW-234) at Crop Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, Naini Agricultural Institute, SHUATS, Allahabad (U.P.). The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design with 12 treatment combinations, consisting of three nitrogen levels (100,125 and 150 kg N/ha) on soil test basis (STB) compared to farmer practice (FP) and nitrogen management viz. 100% N through urea, 75% N through urea + 25% N through vermicompost with seed inoculation by Azotobacter. The experimental result reveals this saving of nitrogen by 16.5 to 31.7 kg/ha without any significant effect on growth and yield of wheat was noticed. The growth parameters viz. plant height, no. of tillers/running row meter, Crop-growth rate (CGR), and Yield attributes viz. No. of effective tillers/m2, grains/spike and grain yield (4.57 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through urea, where as plant dry weight, leaf area index (LAI) and straw yield (7.63 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 75% N through urea + 25% N through vermicompost + Azotobacter (Seed inoculation).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil test management saved 16.5 to 31.7 kg/ha nitrogen without a significant wheat growth or yield effect.

Treatment
saving of nitrogene0
Outcome
growth and yield of wheate0
Direction
without any significant effecte0
Value
16.5 to 31.7 kg/hae0

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

“saving of nitrogen by 16.5 to 31.7 kg/ha without any significant effect on growth and yield of wheat was noticed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–691 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg N/ha farmer practice through urea gave significantly higher plant height, tiller number and crop growth rate.

Treatment
150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through ureae0
Outcome
plant height, no. of tillers/running row meter, Crop-growth rate (CGR)e0
Direction
highere0

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

“plant height, no. of tillers/running row meter, Crop-growth rate (CGR), and Yield attributes viz. No. of effective tillers/m2, grains/spike and grain yield (4.57 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through urea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–981 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The same urea treatment gave significantly higher effective tillers and grains per spike.

Treatment
150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through ureae0
Outcome
No. of effective tillers/m2, grains/spikee0
Direction
highere0

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

“No. of effective tillers/m2, grains/spike and grain yield (4.57 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through urea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–981 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The same urea treatment gave significantly higher grain yield of 4.57 t/ha.

Treatment
150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through ureae0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.57 t/hae0

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

“grain yield (4.57 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 100 % N through urea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 863–981 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mixed urea, vermicompost and Azotobacter gave significantly higher dry weight and leaf area index.

Treatment
75% N through urea + 25% N through vermicompost + Azotobacter (Seed inoculation)e0
Interactor
AzotobacterAzotobactere0symbiont
Outcome
plant dry weight, leaf area index (LAI)e0
Direction
highere0

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 ↗
Azotobacter
Azotobacter · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)DAN H. JONES · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plant dry weight, leaf area index (LAI) and straw yield (7.63 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 75% N through urea + 25% N through vermicompost + Azotobacter (Seed inoculation).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 992–1215 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mixed urea, vermicompost and Azotobacter gave significantly higher straw yield of 7.63 t/ha.

Treatment
75% N through urea + 25% N through vermicompost + Azotobacter (Seed inoculation)e0
Interactor
AzotobacterAzotobactere0symbiont
Outcome
straw yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
7.63 t/hae0

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 ↗
Azotobacter
Azotobacter · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)DAN H. JONES · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“straw yield (7.63 t/ha) were significantly higher with 150 kg N/ha (Farmer Practice) when applied 75% N through urea + 25% N through vermicompost + Azotobacter (Seed inoculation).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1036–1215 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–99 · show in text ↑

Azotobacter · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

88 papers: 87 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

84 papers more in this group

See all 88 papers →

Azotobacter · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

29 papers: 29 positive, 0 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

25 papers more in this group

See all 29 papers →

inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

532 papers: 476 positive, 56 negative or no effect

475 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

528 papers more in this group

See all 532 papers →

nitrogen · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

551 papers: 426 positive, 125 negative or no effect

425 papers in the same direction as this paper · 116 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

547 papers more in this group

See all 551 papers →

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

614 papers: 549 positive, 65 negative or no effect

548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

610 papers more in this group

See all 614 papers →

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

755 papers: 663 positive, 92 negative or no effect

662 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

751 papers more in this group

See all 755 papers →

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

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. negative

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.