Paper · 2016 · Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering

Phosphorus Efficiency in Wheat as Affected by Foliar Spray with Zinc, Humic Acid and Biofertilizer (Bacillus megatherium sp.) Addition Under Calcareous Soil Conditions

M. Niazy; H. Khafagy; Rania Helal

10
claims
21
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

To enhancing the efficiency use of phosphate fertilizer in calcareous soil by bio inoculation with (Bacillus megatherium sp.) as PGPR strain and foliar spray with Zn and humic acid (HA) on wheat (Triticium aestavium L., cv. Sakha 93) productivity and nutrients availability in soil after harvest, two field experiments were conducted at El-Nubaria Agricultural Research Station, Alexandria Governorate, Egypt during 2014 and 2015 seasons. The studied treatments involved three P application rates i.e, 0, 6.5 and 13 kg P fed.-1, foliar spraying with Zn (1.5 kg ZnSO4 /400 L water), humic acid (HA) 1.2 L/400 L water and Zn+HA without and with bio-inoculation with (Bacillus megatherium sp.). The results could be summarized as follow: Available N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn were significantly increased due to the above mentioned treatments. Foliar spraying with Zn and humic acid in combination with biofertilizer under different P fertilizer rates increased wheat yields and 1000-grain weight as well as N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn content and uptake by grains in combined data. Total chlorophyll content and carbohydrates were increased as well as protein content and protein yield. Highest yield efficiency (82.7%) and harvest index (44.7%) were obtained due to the treatment of 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn + bio and 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn, respectively. Apparent P-recovery (APR), P agronomic efficiency (PAE) and P use efficiency (PUE) were markedly decreased with increasing P-addition rates in presence or absence of bio fertilization. Hence, the plants treated with 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + foliar spray with Zn, HA and Zn + HA when inoculated with Bacillus megatherium gave the highest mean values of APR, PUE and PAE. Generally, the treatment of P fertilization (13 kg P fed.-1 combined with Zn + HA) when inoculated with Bacillus megatherium had superior effect in improving soil properties and increasing wheat production, protein content and nutrient uptake with compared to the other treatments under calcareous soil conditions but, in most of them without significant differences with lower rate of 6.5 kg P fed.-1.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The studied treatments significantly increased available soil N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn.

Treatment
above mentioned treatmentse0
Outcome
Available N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zne0
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

“Available N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn were significantly increased due to the above mentioned treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 735–834 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined Zn, humic acid, biofertilizer and P rates increased wheat yields and 1000-grain weight.

Treatment
Foliar spraying with Zn and humic acid in combination with biofertilizer under different P fertilizer ratese0
Outcome
wheat yields and 1000-grain weighte0
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

“Foliar spraying with Zn and humic acid in combination with biofertilizer under different P fertilizer rates increased wheat yields and 1000-grain weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 836–988 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined treatments increased N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn content and uptake by wheat grain.

Treatment
Foliar spraying with Zn and humic acid in combination with biofertilizer under different P fertilizer ratese1
Outcome
N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn content and uptake by grainse0
Direction
increasede1

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

“N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn content and uptake by grains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1051 · show in text ↑
e1

“Foliar spraying with Zn and humic acid in combination with biofertilizer under different P fertilizer rates increased wheat yields and 1000-grain weight as well as N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn content and uptake by grains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 836–1051 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments increased total chlorophyll content and carbohydrates in wheat.

Outcome
Total chlorophyll content and carbohydratese0
Direction
increasede0

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

“Total chlorophyll content and carbohydrates were increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1070–1128 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments increased wheat protein content and protein yield.

Outcome
protein content and protein yielde0
Direction
increasede1

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

“protein content and protein yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1173 · show in text ↑
e1

“Total chlorophyll content and carbohydrates were increased as well as protein content and protein yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1070–1173 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn + bio treatment yielded the highest yield efficiency, 82.7%.

Treatment
6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn + bioe0
Outcome
yield efficiencye0
Direction
Higheste0
Value
82.7%e0

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

“Highest yield efficiency (82.7%) and harvest index (44.7%) were obtained due to the treatment of 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn + bio and 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1337 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn treatment gave a harvest index of 44.7%.

Treatment
6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zne0
Outcome
harvest indexe0
Value
44.7%e0

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

“Highest yield efficiency (82.7%) and harvest index (44.7%) were obtained due to the treatment of 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn + bio and 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + Zn, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1337 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

APR, PAE and PUE declined as P application rates increased with or without biofertilization.

Treatment
increasing P-addition ratese0
Outcome
Apparent P-recovery (APR), P agronomic efficiency (PAE) and P use efficiency (PUE)e0
Direction
decreasede0

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

“Apparent P-recovery (APR), P agronomic efficiency (PAE) and P use efficiency (PUE) were markedly decreased with increasing P-addition rates in presence or absence of bio fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1339–1522 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 6.5 kg P fed.-1, foliar Zn, HA or Zn + HA plus Bacillus inoculation gave the highest mean APR, PUE and PAE.

Treatment
6.5 kg P fed.-1 + foliar spray with Zn, HA and Zn + HA when inoculated with Bacillus megatheriume0
Interactor
Bacillus megatheriume0symbiont
Outcome
APR, PUE and PAEe0
Direction
higheste0

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

“plants treated with 6.5 kg P fed.-1 + foliar spray with Zn, HA and Zn + HA when inoculated with Bacillus megatherium gave the highest mean values of APR, PUE and PAE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1535–1700 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 13 kg P fed.-1 plus Zn + HA and Bacillus treatment improved wheat production, protein content and nutrient uptake relative to other treatments.

Treatment
13 kg P fed.-1 combined with Zn + HA) when inoculated with Bacillus megatheriume0
Interactor
Bacillus megatheriume0symbiont
Outcome
wheat production, protein content and nutrient uptakee0
Direction
increasinge0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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

“13 kg P fed.-1 combined with Zn + HA) when inoculated with Bacillus megatherium had superior effect in improving soil properties and increasing wheat production, protein content and nutrient uptake with compared to the other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1747–1982 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30 · show in text ↑

zinc atom · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

64 papers: 56 positive, 8 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 papers →

zinc atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

380 papers: 347 positive, 33 negative or no effect

346 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

376 papers more in this group

See all 380 papers →

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

511 papers: 456 positive, 55 negative or no effect

455 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

507 papers more in this group

See all 511 papers →

other · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

32 papers: 30 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

inoculation · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

65 papers: 57 positive, 8 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

61 papers more in this group

See all 65 papers →

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

75 papers: 64 positive, 11 negative or no effect

63 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

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

71 papers more in this group

See all 75 papers →

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

223 papers: 206 positive, 17 negative or no effect

205 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. no effect

219 papers more in this group

See all 223 papers →

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

275 papers: 257 positive, 18 negative or no effect

256 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

271 papers more in this group

See all 275 papers →

8 of 13 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.