Abstract
The aim of the work is to study the effects of different treatments: control, single application of organic manure, two seasons straw returning, a quarter of straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizer, two seasons straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizer on the quality index and yield of summer maize; protein, starch, fat content and the amino acid were analyzed using cluster analysis. The results showed that there are significant effects of different fertilization on the quality and yield of maize; the content of maize grain protein content of different straw returning treatments significantly increased by 0.90, 77.03 and 60.6% respectively which was higher than other test treatments. In addition, single organic fertilizer has the most prominent effect on total amino acids. However, the amounts of starch decreased and the less decreased treatment was a quarter of straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizer treatment for 3.5%. The highest crude fat of grain of the single application of organic manure (M) significantly improved by 24.79%. The results show that different long-term straw and fertilizer affect summer maize in their quality characters; application of organic fertilizer can significantly improve the quality of summer maize, as well as its protein and amino acid content. Key words: Long-term location experiment, straw returning, quality and yield, summer maize.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
A straw returning treatment increased maize grain protein content by 0.90 relative to other test treatments
- Treatment
- different straw returning treatmentse2
- Outcome
- maize grain protein contente2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 0.90e2
- Qualifier
- respectivelye2
- Comparator
- other test treatmentse2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e2“the content of maize grain protein content of different straw returning treatments significantly increased by 0.90, 77.03 and 60.6% respectively which was higher than other test treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
A straw returning treatment increased maize grain protein content by 77.03 relative to other test treatments
- Treatment
- different straw returning treatmentse2
- Outcome
- maize grain protein contente2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 77.03e2
- Qualifier
- respectivelye2
- Comparator
- other test treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e2“the content of maize grain protein content of different straw returning treatments significantly increased by 0.90, 77.03 and 60.6% respectively which was higher than other test treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
A straw returning treatment increased maize grain protein content by 60.6% relative to other test treatments
- Treatment
- different straw returning treatmentse2
- Outcome
- maize grain protein contente2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 60.6%e2
- Qualifier
- respectivelye2
- Comparator
- other test treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e2“the content of maize grain protein content of different straw returning treatments significantly increased by 0.90, 77.03 and 60.6% respectively which was higher than other test treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Different fertilization treatments had significant effects on the quality and yield of summer maize
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e7“there are significant effects of different fertilization on the quality and yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Single organic fertilizer had the most prominent effect on total amino acids of summer maize
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e6“single organic fertilizer has the most prominent effect on total amino acids”
Claim · model-written summary
Amounts of starch in summer maize grain decreased under the straw and fertilization treatments
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e3“the amounts of starch decreased”
Claim · model-written summary
The least starch decrease, 3.5%, was under a quarter of straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizer
- Treatment
- a quarter of straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizere4
- Outcome
- amounts of starche3
- Direction
- less decreasede4
- Value
- 3.5%e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e3“the amounts of starch decreased”
e4“the less decreased treatment was a quarter of straw returning combined with nitrogen fertilizer treatment for 3.5%”
Claim · model-written summary
Single application of organic manure significantly improved crude fat of summer maize grain by 24.79%
- Treatment
- the single application of organic manure (M)e5
- Outcome
- crude fat of graine5
- Direction
- significantly improvede5
- Value
- 24.79%e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“on the quality index and yield of summer maize”
e5“The highest crude fat of grain of the single application of organic manure (M) significantly improved by 24.79%”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
81 papers more in this group
See all 85 papers →organic · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
196 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
242 papers more in this group
See all 246 papers →organic · quality: sugar starch · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.