Abstract
Aims: To investigate the effect of silicon (Si) fertilizer and Si fertilizer with straw return in potassium (K) and maize grain yield. Methods: In 2018 and 2019, two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province. Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si). Results: In comparison with WS3, the average soil available K for WS0 was 22.1% lower. Similarly, compared with JS3, the average soil available K for WS3 was even decreased by 3.1%. The plots amended with Si fertilizer (15.9% WS3) significantly increased K uptake than that of WS0, and the total uptake of K under JS3 increased by 7.5% compared with that under WS3. The total dry matter and grain yield were significantly higher under WS3, which increased by 6.5% and 4.8% respectively, and JS3 significantly outperformed WS3 by 2.9% and 1.3% for total dry matter and grain yield. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the application of Si fertilizer improves K availability, uptake and crop yield, and the use of Si fertilizer with straw return sustainably improves K release to meet crop requirements while increasing crop productivity.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Soil available K was 22.1% lower for WS0 (no straw return, no Si) than for WS3 in Nong’an maize fields.
- Treatment
- no straw return + no Sie2
- Outcome
- average soil available Ke1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 22.1%e1
- Comparator
- WS3e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In comparison with WS3, the average soil available K for WS0 was 22.1% lower”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil available K was 3.1% lower for WS3 (no straw return, Si applied) than for JS3 in Nong’an maize fields.
- Treatment
- no straw return + Sie2
- Outcome
- average soil available Ke1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 3.1%e1
- Comparator
- JS3e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with JS3, the average soil available K for WS3 was even decreased by 3.1%”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Si fertilizer significantly increased K uptake compared with WS0 (no Si) in maize, by 15.9%.
- Treatment
- Si fertilizere1
- Outcome
- K uptakee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 15.9%e1
- Comparator
- WS0e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The plots amended with Si fertilizer (15.9% WS3) significantly increased K uptake than that of WS0”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Total K uptake under JS3 (straw return + Si) was 7.5% higher than under WS3 in maize.
- Treatment
- straw return + Sie2
- Outcome
- total uptake of Ke1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 7.5%e1
- Comparator
- WS3e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the total uptake of K under JS3 increased by 7.5% compared with that under WS3”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Total dry matter was significantly higher under WS3 (Si, no straw return), by 6.5%, in maize.
- Treatment
- no straw return + Sie2
- Outcome
- total dry mattere1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 6.5%e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The total dry matter and grain yield were significantly higher under WS3, which increased by 6.5% and 4.8% respectively”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield was significantly higher under WS3 (Si, no straw return), by 4.8%, in maize.
- Treatment
- no straw return + Sie2
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 4.8%e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The total dry matter and grain yield were significantly higher under WS3, which increased by 6.5% and 4.8% respectively”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Total dry matter under JS3 (straw return + Si) significantly outperformed WS3 by 2.9% in maize.
- Treatment
- straw return + Sie2
- Outcome
- total dry mattere1
- Direction
- outperformede1
- Value
- 2.9%e1
- Comparator
- WS3e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“JS3 significantly outperformed WS3 by 2.9% and 1.3% for total dry matter and grain yield”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield under JS3 (straw return + Si) significantly outperformed WS3 by 1.3% in maize.
- Treatment
- straw return + Sie2
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- outperformede1
- Value
- 1.3%e1
- Comparator
- WS3e1
- Setting
- Nong’an county, Jilin provincee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“JS3 significantly outperformed WS3 by 2.9% and 1.3% for total dry matter and grain yield”
e2“Four treatments were arranged in a randomized block design: JS3 (straw return + Si), WS3 (no straw return + Si), JS0 (straw return + no Si) and WS0 (no straw return + no Si)”
e3“two field experiments were established in Nong’an county, Jilin province”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
Claim · model-written summary
Si fertilizer with straw return sustainably improves K release to meet crop requirements while increasing crop productivity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the use of Si fertilizer with straw return sustainably improves K release to meet crop requirements while increasing crop productivity”
t0“Spring Maize (Zea mays L)”
The same questions in other papers
silicon atom · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →silicon atom · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
silicon atom · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →silicon atom · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →organic · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 73 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →organic · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
97 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
116 papers more in this group
See all 120 papers →organic · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
125 papers more in this group
See all 129 papers →organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
369 papers more in this group
See all 373 papers →8 of 9 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.