Paper · 2017

Effect of nutrient management on yield andquality of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.)Gaertn)

Y Sandhya Rani; U Triveni; Tssk Patro

5
claims
5
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) is a staple food crop grown by subsistence farmers in red sandy loam soils of North Coastal Zone and scarce rainfall zone of Andhra Pradesh. It is commonly known as “Nutricereals” and is nutritionally superior to many cereals providing proteins, minerals, calcium and vitamins in abundance and is highly valued by traditional farmers as it is nutritious, drought tolerant, short duration and requires low inputs. High yielding varieties of finger millet require comparatively large quantities of both macro and micronutrients and are expected to respond favourably to their application. In view of this finger millet widely grown and commonly consumed in India was explored as a vehicle for fortification with zinc and iron. A field experiment was conducted to study the yield responses of finger millet pre released variety VR 900 to graded doses of inorganic fertilizers (macronutrients and micronutrients) which has been shown to be important for early establishment of finger millet. The experimental results indicated that significantly higher grain and straw yields of finger millet were recorded in the treatment with 150% RDF+ZnSO4 0.5% foliar spray + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (78.1q/ha and 33.7q/ha respectively). The highest available soil macronutrients and uptake of plant macronutrients was also found in the same treatment. Whereas the highest available Zn in the soil was found in the treatment 150% RDF+ZnSO4 soil application + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (3.32ppm), and the highest available Fe in the treatment 150% RDF+ FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (17.63ppm).

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined 150% RDF, zinc and iron sprays produced significantly higher grain yield of 78.1q/ha.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanae0
Treatment
150% RDF+ZnSO4 0.5% foliar spray + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spraye0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
highere0
Value
78.1q/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly higher grain and straw yields of finger millet were recorded in the treatment with 150% RDF+ZnSO4 0.5% foliar spray + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (78.1q/ha and 33.7q/ha respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1074–1266 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The same combined treatment produced significantly higher straw yield of 33.7q/ha.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanae0
Treatment
150% RDF+ZnSO4 0.5% foliar spray + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spraye0
Outcome
straw yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Value
33.7q/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly higher grain and straw yields of finger millet were recorded in the treatment with 150% RDF+ZnSO4 0.5% foliar spray + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (78.1q/ha and 33.7q/ha respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1074–1266 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined treatment gave highest available soil macronutrients and plant macronutrient uptake.

Outcome
available soil macronutrients and uptake of plant macronutrientse0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The highest available soil macronutrients and uptake of plant macronutrients was also found in the same treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1268–1382 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil zinc availability was highest at 3.32ppm with soil zinc and foliar iron applied with 150% RDF.

Treatment
150% RDF+ZnSO4 soil application + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spraye0
Outcome
available Zn in the soile0
Direction
higheste0
Value
3.32ppme0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the highest available Zn in the soil was found in the treatment 150% RDF+ZnSO4 soil application + FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (3.32ppm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1391–1522 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil iron availability was highest at 17.63ppm with 150% RDF and foliar iron spray.

Treatment
150% RDF+ FeSO4 0.2% foliar spraye0
Outcome
available Fee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
17.63ppme0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the highest available Fe in the treatment 150% RDF+ FeSO4 0.2% foliar spray (17.63ppm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1528–1614 · show in text ↑

iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous) · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)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 →

iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous) · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 17 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

52 papers: 51 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

fertilization · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

174 papers: 171 positive, 3 negative or no effect

170 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

170 papers more in this group

See all 174 papers →

application · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree

56 papers: 56 positive, 0 negative or no effect

55 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

52 papers more in this group

See all 56 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.