Paper · 2021 · Journal of Agriculture and Crops

Sorghum Grain and Stover Nutrient Concentrations as Influenced by Tillage and Soil Amendment in Semi-Arid Burkina Faso

Palé Siébou; Taonda Sibiri Jean-Baptiste; Mason Stephen C.; et al.

11
claims
23
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench) is a major grain crop in Burkina Faso. Two three-year experiments were conducted in the Sudanian and Sudano-Sahelian zones to determine how plant nutrient concentrations are affected by tillage methods (T) and soil amendments (SA). In both locations, T and SA had little effect on grain and stover nutrient concentrations with some cases of inconsistency across years. Some nutrient concentrations differed by year. The grain nutrient concentrations of N, P, Mg, S, Zn, and Fe were adequate for human nutrition at both locations, but deficient for K, Ca, Mn and Cu. Sorghum nutrient concentrations for feeding cattle were adequate for K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, and Zn in most cases at both locations but low for N, P, and Cu. The stover N and P concentrations also appeared to be deficient for optimal plant growth. In both agroecological zones, nutrient applications or genetic enhancement to improve deficient nutrient concentrations, or use of diverse foodstuffs, or biofortified sorghum to provide deficient nutrients in human and cattle diets is needed to meet dietary requirements. In addition to grain and stover yield, studies need to evaluate grain nutrient and stover nutrient concentrations to meet human and cattle dietary requirements.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage methods and soil amendments had little effect on sorghum grain and stover nutrient concentrations.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Treatment
tillage methods (T) and soil amendments (SA)e1
Outcome
grain and stover nutrient concentrationse2
Direction
no_changeinferrede2
Setting
Sudanian and Sudano-Sahelian zonese1

Not reportedComparator

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e1

“Two three-year experiments were conducted in the Sudanian and Sudano-Sahelian zones to determine how plant nutrient concentrations are affected by tillage methods (T) and soil amendments (SA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 76–267 · show in text ↑
e2

“In both locations, T and SA had little effect on grain and stover nutrient concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–358 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain N, P and Mg concentrations were adequate for human nutrition.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
N, P, Mge3
Qualifier
adequate for human nutritione3

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e3

“The grain nutrient concentrations of N, P, Mg, S, Zn, and Fe were adequate for human nutrition at both locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 453–565 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain S, Zn and Fe concentrations were adequate for human nutrition.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
S, Zn, and Fee3
Qualifier
adequate for human nutritione3

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e3

“The grain nutrient concentrations of N, P, Mg, S, Zn, and Fe were adequate for human nutrition at both locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 453–565 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain K and Ca concentrations were deficient.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
K, Cae4
Qualifier
deficiente4

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e4

“The grain nutrient concentrations of N, P, Mg, S, Zn, and Fe were adequate for human nutrition at both locations, but deficient for K, Ca, Mn and Cu”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 453–601 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grain Mn and Cu concentrations were deficient.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
Mn and Cue4
Qualifier
deficiente4

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e4

“The grain nutrient concentrations of N, P, Mg, S, Zn, and Fe were adequate for human nutrition at both locations, but deficient for K, Ca, Mn and Cu”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 453–601 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum for cattle feeding had adequate K, Ca and Mg concentrations in most cases.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
K, Ca, Mge5
Qualifier
adequatee5

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e5

“Sorghum nutrient concentrations for feeding cattle were adequate for K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, and Zn in most cases at both locations but low for N, P, and Cu”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–753 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum for cattle feeding had adequate S, Mn and Zn concentrations in most cases.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
S, Mn, and Zne5
Qualifier
adequatee5

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e5

“Sorghum nutrient concentrations for feeding cattle were adequate for K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, and Zn in most cases at both locations but low for N, P, and Cu”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–753 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sorghum for cattle feeding had low N, P and Cu concentrations.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
N, P, and Cue5
Qualifier
lowe5

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e5

“Sorghum nutrient concentrations for feeding cattle were adequate for K, Ca, Mg, S, Mn, and Zn in most cases at both locations but low for N, P, and Cu”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–753 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stover N and P concentrations were deficient for optimal plant growth.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Organ / stage
stovere6
Outcome
stover N and P concentrationse6
Qualifier
deficiente6

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e6

“The stover N and P concentrations also appeared to be deficient for optimal plant growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 755–843 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Some sorghum nutrient concentrations differed by year.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
nutrient concentrations differed by yeare7

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e7

“Some nutrient concentrations differed by year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 406–451 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Nutrient applications or genetic enhancement are needed to improve deficient sorghum nutrient concentrations.

Taxon
Sorghum bicolorSorghum bicolore0
Outcome
nutrient applications or genetic enhancement to improve deficient nutrient concentrationse7

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

Sorghum bicolor
Sorghum bicolor · TaxonNo machine-readable author provided. Pethan assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–36 · show in text ↑
e7

“nutrient applications or genetic enhancement to improve deficient nutrient concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 875–964 · show in text ↑

schema checkedfield values found in the cited quotesPermalinkReport an issue

salicylic acid · nutrient: content · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

other · nutrient: content · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

tillage · nutrient: content · Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.