Paper · 2021 · Journal of Environmental Biology

Impact of foliar application of different nano-fertilizers on soil microbial properties and yield of wheat

R.H. Meena; G. Jat; D. Jain

4
claims
6
verbatim quotes
40
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Aim: The present investigation was carried out to study the effect of foliar application nano-fertilizers P, K and Zn on yield, nutrient content and uptake by wheat and soil microbial properties in sub-humid southern plains of Rajasthan. Methodology: The experiment was laid out in triplicate following randomized block design with fifteen treatments comprising foliar application of different doses of Nano P, K and Zn. Results: Foliar application of 1st spray of Nano Zn at 14 days after sowing (DAS) + 2nd spray of Nano Zn at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) significantly (P=0.05) increased yield attributes and nutrient uptake in wheat. The significantly (P=0.05) maximum microbial population (bacteria and fungi) and microbial biomass-C was obtained with 1st spray of Nano P at 14 DAS + 2nd spray of Nano P at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF). Interpretation: Foliar application of nano fertilizers led to significant improvement of crop productivity of wheat in sub-humid southern plain of Rajasthan. Moreover, the foliar application of nano-fertilizers, i.e., Nano P also stimulated microbial growth by providing nutrients and directly increased their population in soil. Key words: Biomass-C, Foliar application, Nano-fertilizers, Soil microbial population, Wheat 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano Zn with RDF increased wheat yield attributes.

Treatment
1st spray of Nano Zn at 14 days after sowing (DAS) + 2nd spray of Nano Zn at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF)e0
Outcome
yield attributese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Foliar application of 1st spray of Nano Zn at 14 days after sowing (DAS) + 2nd spray of Nano Zn at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) significantly (P=0.05) increased yield attributes and nutrient uptake in wheat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano Zn with RDF increased wheat nutrient uptake.

Treatment
1st spray of Nano Zn at 14 days after sowing (DAS) + 2nd spray of Nano Zn at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF)e0
Outcome
nutrient uptakee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Foliar application of 1st spray of Nano Zn at 14 days after sowing (DAS) + 2nd spray of Nano Zn at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) significantly (P=0.05) increased yield attributes and nutrient uptake in wheat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 430–669 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano P with RDF produced the maximum soil microbial population.

Treatment
1st spray of Nano P at 14 DAS + 2nd spray of Nano P at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF)e0
Outcome
microbial population (bacteria and fungi)e0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

“The significantly (P=0.05) maximum microbial population (bacteria and fungi) and microbial biomass-C was obtained with 1st spray of Nano P at 14 DAS + 2nd spray of Nano P at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–905 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano P with RDF produced the maximum soil microbial biomass-C.

Treatment
1st spray of Nano P at 14 DAS + 2nd spray of Nano P at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF)e0
Outcome
microbial biomass-Ce0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

“The significantly (P=0.05) maximum microbial population (bacteria and fungi) and microbial biomass-C was obtained with 1st spray of Nano P at 14 DAS + 2nd spray of Nano P at 28 DAS along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–905 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–106 · show in text ↑

zinc atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

380 papers: 347 positive, 33 negative or no effect

346 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

376 papers more in this group

See all 380 papers →

zinc atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

511 papers: 456 positive, 55 negative or no effect

455 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

507 papers more in this group

See all 511 papers →

fertilization · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

82 papers: 77 positive, 5 negative or no effect

76 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

78 papers more in this group

See all 82 papers →

application · soil: biology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 19 positive, 3 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

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

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

nanoparticle · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

105 papers: 101 positive, 4 negative or no effect

100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

101 papers more in this group

See all 105 papers →

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

260 papers: 242 positive, 18 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

256 papers more in this group

See all 260 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

275 papers: 257 positive, 18 negative or no effect

256 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

271 papers more in this group

See all 275 papers →

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

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

794 papers in the same direction as this paper · 75 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

873 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

8 of 11 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.