Abstract
Onion has very shallow root system that is frequently irrigated and fertilized with high fertilizer dose rates to maximize yield. Converting from furrow-fertigated to microsprinkler fertigated onion production may reduce fertilizer needs. The influence of fertigation sources and their levels, applied through microsprinkler irrigation on winter onion (Allium cepa L.) was evaluated for the years 2009-2011 under semi-arid region of India. The experiment was laid out in factorial randomized block design with nine treatments replicated thrice under microsprinkler system comprising three fertigation sources in main plots with three fertigation levels in sub plots. Fertigation by water soluble fertilizers sources improved plant height, neck thickness, polar and equatorial diameter, dry matter, bulb weight and green leaves weight. However, the differences in fertigation source urea+ urea phosphate + muriate of potash and urea+18:18:18 through microsprinkler was mostly non-significant. In fertigation levels, 100 % and 80 % recommended dose gave significantly higher values of growth and yield components than 60 % level. The marketable bulb yield decreased with decrease in level of fertigation from 100 to 60% but not decreased significantly showed potential saving of 40% fertilizer cost by use of fertigation. The bulb storage losses in microsprinkler fertigation did not differed; but was higher under when conventional fertilizer source was used. The bulb storage losses were reduced with fertigation 60 to 100%. Higher gross income, total net income, and the best benefit: cost ratio occurred with 60 and 100% microsprinkler fertigation. The treatment combination with application of 60% recommended dose of nutrients with urea+ urea phosphate + muriate of potash or urea+18:18:18 through microsprinkler in 10 weekly splits was optimum for growth, yield, storage and profit for winter onion cultivation.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Water soluble fertilizer sources improved onion growth and bulb traits.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)
Allium cepat0 - Treatment
- water soluble fertilizers sourcese0
- Outcome
- plant height, neck thickness, polar and equatorial diametere0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertigation by water soluble fertilizers sources improved plant height, neck thickness, polar and equatorial diameter, dry matter, bulb weight and green leaves weight.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water soluble fertilizer sources improved onion dry matter, bulb weight and green leaves weight.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- water soluble fertilizers sourcese0
- Outcome
- dry matter, bulb weight and green leaves weighte0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertigation by water soluble fertilizers sources improved plant height, neck thickness, polar and equatorial diameter, dry matter, bulb weight and green leaves weight.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The two specified fertilizer sources mostly did not differ significantly.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- urea+ urea phosphate + muriate of potashe0
- Outcome
- differences in fertigation sourcee0
- Comparator
- urea+18:18:18e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the differences in fertigation source urea+ urea phosphate + muriate of potash and urea+18:18:18 through microsprinkler was mostly non-significant.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 100% and 80% recommended doses gave higher growth and yield component values than 60%.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- 100 % and 80 % recommended dosee0
- Outcome
- growth and yield componentse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- 60 % levele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“100 % and 80 % recommended dose gave significantly higher values of growth and yield components than 60 % level.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Marketable bulb yield declined as fertigation fell from 100 to 60%, without a significant difference.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- level of fertigatione0
- Outcome
- marketable bulb yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- 100 to 60%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The marketable bulb yield decreased with decrease in level of fertigation from 100 to 60% but not decreased significantly”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identified potential fertilizer cost savings of 40% with fertigation.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Outcome
- fertilizer coste0
- Direction
- savinge0
- Value
- 40%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“showed potential saving of 40% fertilizer cost by use of fertigation.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulb storage losses were higher with a conventional fertilizer source.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- conventional fertilizer sourcee0
- Outcome
- bulb storage lossese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- microsprinkler fertigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The bulb storage losses in microsprinkler fertigation did not differed; but was higher under when conventional fertilizer source was used.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bulb storage losses were reduced with fertigation at 60 to 100%.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- fertigation 60 to 100%e0
- Outcome
- bulb storage lossese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The bulb storage losses were reduced with fertigation 60 to 100%.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Gross income, net income and benefit to cost ratio were highest with 60 and 100% microsprinkler fertigation.
- Taxon
- winter onion (Allium cepa L.)Allium cepat0
- Treatment
- 60 and 100% microsprinkler fertigatione0
- Outcome
- gross income, total net income, and the best benefit: cost ratioe0
- Direction
- Highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher gross income, total net income, and the best benefit: cost ratio occurred with 60 and 100% microsprinkler fertigation.”
t0“winter onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered 60% nutrient dose with either listed fertilizer source in 10 weekly microsprinkler splits optimal for winter onion.
- Taxon
- winter onionAllium cepae0
- Treatment
- 60% recommended dose of nutrientse0
- Outcome
- optimum for growth, yield, storage and profite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The treatment combination with application of 60% recommended dose of nutrients with urea+ urea phosphate + muriate of potash or urea+18:18:18 through microsprinkler in 10 weekly splits was optimum for growth, yield, storage and profit for winter onion cultivation.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · growth · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
250 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
290 papers more in this group
See all 294 papers →fertilization · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
463 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
526 papers more in this group
See all 530 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.