Paper · 2019 · Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Studies on the rhizosphere, yield attributes and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) influenced by micronutrients, FYM and biofertilizers

VK Verma; Ram Pyare; Dhananjai Singh; et al.

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The experiments were conducted during the Rabi seasons of 2014-15 and 2015-16 at Students’ Instructional Farm of C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur with the objective to assess the effect of micronutrients, FYM and biofertilizers to improve root vigour, yield attributes and yield of wheat under irrigated conditions. The treatments consisted of superimposed dose of sulphur (25.0 kg.ha-1), zinc (5.0 kg ha-1), boron (1.0 kgha-1), Iron (5.0 kg ha-1), FYM (10 t ha-1), Azotobacter and PSB (200g 10 kg-1 of seed) as individually and in combination along with NPK doses compared with only NPK doses (control treatment), were laid out in Randomized Block Design and replicated three times. The response of above nutrient levels was analyzed on growth parameters, yield attributes and yield as well as economics of normal sown wheat variety Mahi (K-402). The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment. The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively.

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient and microbial inoculant treatments over NPK increased root length by 25% to 40% compared with the control.

Treatment
superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK dosese1
Outcome
root lengthe1
Direction
increasinge1
Value
25% to 40%e1
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–1225 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient and microbial inoculant treatments over NPK increased root fresh weight by 21% to 34% compared with the control.

Treatment
superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK dosese1
Outcome
root fresh weighte1
Direction
increasinge1
Value
21% to 34%e1
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–1225 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient and microbial inoculant treatments over NPK increased effective tillers by 25% to 38% compared with the control.

Treatment
superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK dosese1
Outcome
effective tillerse1
Direction
increasinge1
Value
25% to 38%e1
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–1225 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient and microbial inoculant treatments over NPK increased ear length by 9% to 20% compared with the control.

Treatment
superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK dosese1
Outcome
ear lengthe1
Direction
increasinge1
Value
9% to 20%e1
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–1225 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient and microbial inoculant treatments over NPK increased grains per ear by 15% to 36% compared with the control.

Treatment
superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK dosese1
Outcome
grains ear-1e1
Direction
increasinge1
Value
15% to 36%e1
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–1225 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient and microbial inoculant treatments over NPK increased grain yield by 26% to 34% compared with the control.

Treatment
superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK dosese1
Outcome
grain yielde1
Direction
increasinge1
Value
26% to 34%e1
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The superimposition of micro nutrients and microbial inoculants over NPK doses in different treatments exhibited significant response in terms of increasing root length (25% to 40%), root fresh weight (21% to 34%), effective tillers (25% to 38%), ear length (9% to 20%), grains ear-1 (15% to 36%) grain yield (26% to 34%) compared to control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–1225 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe combination had the highest grain yield in 2014-15, 47.50 q ha-1.

Treatment
NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fee1
Outcome
grain yielde1
Direction
higheste1
Value
47.50q ha-1e1
Qualifier
2014-15e1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1469 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe combination had the highest grain yield in 2015-16, 53.05 q ha-1.

Treatment
NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fee1
Outcome
grain yielde1
Direction
higheste1
Value
53.05 q ha-1e1
Qualifier
2015-16e1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1469 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe combination had the highest gross income in 2014-15, Rs. 90325 ha-1.

Treatment
NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fee1
Outcome
gross incomee1
Direction
higheste1
Value
Rs. 90325 ha-1e1
Qualifier
2014-15e1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1469 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe combination had the highest gross income in 2015-16, Rs. 103734 ha-1.

Treatment
NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fee1
Outcome
gross incomee1
Direction
higheste1
Value
Rs. 103734 ha-1e1
Qualifier
2015-16e1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1469 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe combination had the highest net income in 2014-15, Rs. 46866 ha-1.

Treatment
NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fee1
Outcome
net incomee1
Direction
higheste1
Value
Rs. 46866 ha-1e1
Qualifier
2014-15e1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1469 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe combination had the highest net income in 2015-16, Rs. 58088 ha-1.

Treatment
NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fee1
Outcome
net incomee1
Direction
higheste1
Value
Rs. 58088 ha-1e1
Qualifier
2015-16e1

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

t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–63 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combined doses of NPK+FYM+S+Zn+B+Fe recorded highest grain yield (47.50q ha-1 and 53.05 q ha-1), gross income (Rs. 90325 ha-1 and Rs. 103734 ha-1) and net income (Rs. 46866 ha-1 and Rs. 58088 ha-1) during 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1227–1469 · show in text ↑

micronutrient · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

micronutrient · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

inoculation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

532 papers: 476 positive, 56 negative or no effect

475 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

528 papers more in this group

See all 532 papers →

inoculation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

614 papers: 549 positive, 65 negative or no effect

548 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

610 papers more in this group

See all 614 papers →

fertilization · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

755 papers: 663 positive, 92 negative or no effect

662 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

751 papers more in this group

See all 755 papers →

fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 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.