Paper · 2020 · Plant Production Science

Optimizing chlorophyll meter (SPAD) reading to allow efficient nitrogen use in rice and wheat under rice-wheat cropping system in eastern India

Mainak Ghosh; Dillip Kumar Swain; Madan Kumar Jha; et al.

9
claims
14
verbatim quotes
50
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Conventional agricultural practices that rely heavily on blanket fertilizer recommendation, eventually leading to deteriorated partial factor productivity and N use efficiency. We investigated the effect of SPAD-based N-management on productivity and N use efficiency of rice and wheat in eastern India. Here, in the experiment three SPAD thresholds (34, 36 and 38 in rice and 38, 40 and 42 in wheat) using three N levels (15, 25 and 35 kg N ha−1) in split were incorporated as real-time N management (RTNM), one fixed-time N management (FTNM), farmers’ fertilizer practice (FFP) and control (No fertilizer) were introduced in wet and dry seasons for rice and wheat, respectively, during the years 2010 to 2012. Topdressing with 25 kg N ha−1 at medium SPAD (S36 in rice and S40 in wheat) increased soil N availability, leaf N content and grain yield of rice (5215 kg ha−1) and wheat (4483 kg ha−1) over the grain yield recorded under a low rate of N topdressing at low SPAD. While saving 33.3% N in rice and 18.8% N in wheat, the agronomic N use efficiency (58.5% in both rice and wheat) and nitrogen recovery efficiency (32.2% in rice and 15.1% in wheat) can be increased when compared with conventional FTNM. The SPAD-based management strategy showed great promise in efficient management of N fertilizer, and we estimated the optimal SPAD threshold for rice and wheat as 37.5 and 41.8, respectively.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SPAD-guided topdressing raised rice soil nitrogen availability, leaf nitrogen and grain yield to 5215 kg ha−1.

Treatment
25 kg N ha−1 at medium SPAD (S36 in rice and S40 in wheat)e0
Outcome
soil N availability, leaf N content and grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
5215 kg ha−1e0
Comparator
a low rate of N topdressing at low SPADe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Topdressing with 25 kg N ha−1 at medium SPAD (S36 in rice and S40 in wheat) increased soil N availability, leaf N content and grain yield of rice (5215 kg ha−1) and wheat (4483 kg ha−1) over the grain yield recorded under a low rate of N topdressing at low SPAD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–974 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SPAD-guided topdressing raised wheat soil nitrogen availability, leaf nitrogen and grain yield to 4483 kg ha−1.

Treatment
25 kg N ha−1 at medium SPAD (S36 in rice and S40 in wheat)e0
Outcome
soil N availability, leaf N content and grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
4483 kg ha−1e0
Comparator
a low rate of N topdressing at low SPADe0

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

“Topdressing with 25 kg N ha−1 at medium SPAD (S36 in rice and S40 in wheat) increased soil N availability, leaf N content and grain yield of rice (5215 kg ha−1) and wheat (4483 kg ha−1) over the grain yield recorded under a low rate of N topdressing at low SPAD.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–974 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SPAD management saved 33.3% nitrogen in rice relative to conventional fixed-time management.

Treatment
SPAD-based management strategye1
Outcome
Ne0
Direction
savinge0
Value
33.3% Ne0
Comparator
conventional FTNMe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“While saving 33.3% N in rice and 18.8% N in wheat, the agronomic N use efficiency (58.5% in both rice and wheat) and nitrogen recovery efficiency (32.2% in rice and 15.1% in wheat) can be increased when compared with conventional FTNM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 975–1210 · show in text ↑
e1

“The SPAD-based management strategy showed great promise in efficient management of N fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1306 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SPAD management saved 18.8% nitrogen in wheat relative to conventional fixed-time management.

Treatment
SPAD-based management strategye1
Outcome
Ne0
Direction
savinge0
Value
18.8% Ne0
Comparator
conventional FTNMe0

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

“While saving 33.3% N in rice and 18.8% N in wheat, the agronomic N use efficiency (58.5% in both rice and wheat) and nitrogen recovery efficiency (32.2% in rice and 15.1% in wheat) can be increased when compared with conventional FTNM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 975–1210 · show in text ↑
e1

“The SPAD-based management strategy showed great promise in efficient management of N fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1306 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Agronomic nitrogen use efficiency increased to 58.5% in rice and wheat.

Treatment
SPAD-based management strategye1
Outcome
agronomic N use efficiencye0
Direction
increasede0
Value
58.5%e0
Comparator
conventional FTNMe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the agronomic N use efficiency (58.5% in both rice and wheat) and nitrogen recovery efficiency (32.2% in rice and 15.1% in wheat) can be increased when compared with conventional FTNM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1026–1210 · show in text ↑
e1

“The SPAD-based management strategy showed great promise in efficient management of N fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1306 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen recovery efficiency increased to 32.2% in rice.

Treatment
SPAD-based management strategye1
Outcome
nitrogen recovery efficiencye0
Direction
increasede0
Value
32.2%e0
Comparator
conventional FTNMe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nitrogen recovery efficiency (32.2% in rice and 15.1% in wheat) can be increased when compared with conventional FTNM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1210 · show in text ↑
e1

“The SPAD-based management strategy showed great promise in efficient management of N fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1306 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen recovery efficiency increased to 15.1% in wheat.

Treatment
SPAD-based management strategye1
Outcome
nitrogen recovery efficiencye0
Direction
increasede0
Value
15.1%e0
Comparator
conventional FTNMe0

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

“nitrogen recovery efficiency (32.2% in rice and 15.1% in wheat) can be increased when compared with conventional FTNM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1210 · show in text ↑
e1

“The SPAD-based management strategy showed great promise in efficient management of N fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1306 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The estimated optimal rice SPAD threshold was 37.5.

Outcome
optimal SPAD thresholde0
Value
37.5e0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“we estimated the optimal SPAD threshold for rice and wheat as 37.5 and 41.8, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1312–1402 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The estimated optimal wheat SPAD threshold was 41.8.

Outcome
optimal SPAD thresholde0
Value
41.8e0

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

“we estimated the optimal SPAD threshold for rice and wheat as 37.5 and 41.8, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1312–1402 · show in text ↑

Triticum aestivum · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

124 papers: 110 positive, 14 negative or no effect

109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

120 papers more in this group

See all 124 papers →

Oryza sativa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

154 papers: 128 positive, 26 negative or no effect

127 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

150 papers more in this group

See all 154 papers →

in vitro · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 29 positive, 9 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

in vitro · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

60 papers: 51 positive, 9 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

56 papers more in this group

See all 60 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

2,045 papers: 1,803 positive, 242 negative or no effect

1,802 papers in the same direction as this paper · 193 in the opposite direction · 49 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2,041 papers more in this group

See all 2,045 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. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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.