Paper · 2020 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Evaluation of Foliar Application of Different Types of Nanofertilizers on Growth, Yield and Quality Parameters and Nutrient Concentration of Cotton under Irrigated Condition

D. Kanjana

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Two years (2014-15 and 2015-16) of field experiments were conducted under winter irrigated conditions on Periyanaicken palayam soil series (Vertic Ustropept) at Central Institute for Cotton Research, Regional Station, Coimbatore to study the effect of different types of commercially available nanofertilizers on cotton growth and yield. Combined form of macro and micronutrient nanofertilizers (NF 1, NF 2, NF 3 and NF 4) compared with recommended dose of combined form of normal micronutrient fertilizers which were sprayed on cotton (var: Suraj) at 30 and 90 DAS. The results clearly revealed that foliar application of recommended dose of NF 3 and NF 4 nanofertilizers significantly increased the seed cotton yield by 16.0 and 14.4 % respectively over normal recommended dose of micronutrients which was followed by NF 2 (9.5 %) and NF 1 (9.2 %) nanofertilizers. However, fibre quality parameters were not significantly influenced by foliar application of commercially available nanofertilizers. All the macro nutrients (N, P and K) concentration were significantly affected in one or both years due to foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizers, but among the micronutrients, copper is the only micronutrient to show their significance. Overall, application of commercially available nanofertilizers considerably increased the number of opened bolls, boll weight and seed cotton yield as compared to normal recommended dose of micronutrients and control.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

NF 3 increased seed cotton yield by 16.0 over the normal micronutrient dose.

Treatment
NF 3e0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
16.0e0
Comparator
normal recommended dose of micronutrientse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar application of recommended dose of NF 3 and NF 4 nanofertilizers significantly increased the seed cotton yield by 16.0 and 14.4 % respectively over normal recommended dose of micronutrients which was followed by NF 2 (9.5 %) and NF 1 (9.2 %) nanofertilizers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 601–866 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

NF 4 increased seed cotton yield by 14.4 % over the normal micronutrient dose.

Treatment
NF 4e0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
14.4 %e0
Comparator
normal recommended dose of micronutrientse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar application of recommended dose of NF 3 and NF 4 nanofertilizers significantly increased the seed cotton yield by 16.0 and 14.4 % respectively over normal recommended dose of micronutrients which was followed by NF 2 (9.5 %) and NF 1 (9.2 %) nanofertilizers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 601–866 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NF 2 increased seed cotton yield by 9.5 % over the normal micronutrient dose.

Treatment
NF 2e0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
9.5 %e0
Comparator
normal recommended dose of micronutrientse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar application of recommended dose of NF 3 and NF 4 nanofertilizers significantly increased the seed cotton yield by 16.0 and 14.4 % respectively over normal recommended dose of micronutrients which was followed by NF 2 (9.5 %) and NF 1 (9.2 %) nanofertilizers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 601–866 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NF 1 increased seed cotton yield by 9.2 % over the normal micronutrient dose.

Treatment
NF 1e0
Outcome
seed cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
9.2 %e0
Comparator
normal recommended dose of micronutrientse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar application of recommended dose of NF 3 and NF 4 nanofertilizers significantly increased the seed cotton yield by 16.0 and 14.4 % respectively over normal recommended dose of micronutrients which was followed by NF 2 (9.5 %) and NF 1 (9.2 %) nanofertilizers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 601–866 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nanofertilizers did not significantly influence fibre quality.

Treatment
foliar application of commercially available nanofertilizerse0
Outcome
fibre quality parameterse0
Direction
not significantly influencede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fibre quality parameters were not significantly influenced by foliar application of commercially available nanofertilizers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 876–999 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar nanofertilizers significantly affected cotton N concentration.

Treatment
foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizerse0
Outcome
Ne0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the macro nutrients (N, P and K) concentration were significantly affected in one or both years due to foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizers, but among the micronutrients, copper is the only micronutrient to show their significance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1256 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar nanofertilizers significantly affected cotton P concentration.

Treatment
foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizerse0
Outcome
Pe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the macro nutrients (N, P and K) concentration were significantly affected in one or both years due to foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizers, but among the micronutrients, copper is the only micronutrient to show their significance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1256 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar nanofertilizers significantly affected cotton K concentration.

Treatment
foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizerse0
Outcome
Ke0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the macro nutrients (N, P and K) concentration were significantly affected in one or both years due to foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizers, but among the micronutrients, copper is the only micronutrient to show their significance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1256 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar nanofertilizers significantly affected cotton copper concentration.

Treatment
foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizerse0
Outcome
coppere0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the macro nutrients (N, P and K) concentration were significantly affected in one or both years due to foliar spraying of commercially available nanofertilizers, but among the micronutrients, copper is the only micronutrient to show their significance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1256 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nanofertilizers increased opened bolls, boll weight and seed cotton yield versus the reference treatments.

Treatment
commercially available nanofertilizerse0
Outcome
number of opened bolls, boll weight and seed cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
normal recommended dose of micronutrients and controle0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of commercially available nanofertilizers considerably increased the number of opened bolls, boll weight and seed cotton yield as compared to normal recommended dose of micronutrients and control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1266–1474 · show in text ↑
e1

“cotton growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–336 · show in text ↑

nanoparticle · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

29 papers: 27 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

25 papers more in this group

See all 29 papers →

application · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

77 papers: 58 positive, 19 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 58 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

73 papers more in this group

See all 77 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.