Abstract
During the recent time, small millets are re-evaluated as ‘nutri-cereals’ because of their nutritional quality. Among various small millets, finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn) is of prime importance due to its potential in terms of production and productivity. Though finger millet is a less nutrient demanding crop, improved varieties respond well to added nutrients. Nitrogen is the most limiting macro-nutrient that determines the crop productivity. However, soil application of nitrogen in the form of chemical fertilizer might be subjected to different losses. Foliar application of urea is a well-known strategy to abate acute deficiency at any crop growing stage. Recent developments in the field of nano-technology and release of IFFCO nano-urea enhance the scope of nitrogen supplementation with increased efficiency. To evaluate the comparative performance of foliar application of urea and nano-urea in finger millet, a field experiment was conducted during rabi season of 2021–22 at Experimental Farm of Centurion University of Technology and Management, Paralakhemundi, Odisha. The experiment was laid out in a randomized completely blocked design (RCBD) with 11 treatments, replicated thrice. The results revealed that the treatment consisting of 40 kg N/ha + 2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/L applied at tillering and pre-flowering stage was superior to the rest of the treatments in terms of growth, yield parameters and yield of finger millet. However, 20 kg N/ha+2 sprays of nano urea @ 4ml/L recorded at par results with sole soil application of 40 kg N/ha. Therefore, it was concluded that application of 20kg N/ha+2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/L could be an economical and sustainable strategy to optimize the use of nitrogen in finger millet in southern Odisha.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Forty kg N/ha plus two nano urea sprays at 4 ml/L gave superior growth to other treatments.
- Taxon
- finger millet
Eleusine coracanae0 - Treatment
- 40 kg N/ha + 2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/Le0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- the rest of the treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the treatment consisting of 40 kg N/ha + 2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/L applied at tillering and pre-flowering stage was superior to the rest of the treatments in terms of growth, yield parameters and yield of finger millet.”
Claim · model-written summary
Forty kg N/ha plus two nano urea sprays at 4 ml/L gave superior yield parameters and yield to other treatments.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- 40 kg N/ha + 2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/Le0
- Outcome
- yield parameters and yielde0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- the rest of the treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the treatment consisting of 40 kg N/ha + 2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/L applied at tillering and pre-flowering stage was superior to the rest of the treatments in terms of growth, yield parameters and yield of finger millet.”
Claim · model-written summary
Twenty kg N/ha plus two nano urea sprays at 4 ml/L gave results at par with soil application of 40 kg N/ha.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- 20 kg N/ha+2 sprays of nano urea @ 4ml/Le0
- Outcome
- resultse0
- Direction
- at pare0
- Comparator
- sole soil application of 40 kg N/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“20 kg N/ha+2 sprays of nano urea @ 4ml/L recorded at par results with sole soil application of 40 kg N/ha.”
t0“finger millet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 20 kg N/ha plus two nano urea sprays at 4 ml/L as an economical and sustainable nitrogen strategy for finger millet in southern Odisha.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- 20kg N/ha+2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/Le0
- Outcome
- optimize the use of nitrogene0
- Qualifier
- could be an economical and sustainable strategye0
- Setting
- southern Odishae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“application of 20kg N/ha+2 sprays of nano urea @ 4 ml/L could be an economical and sustainable strategy to optimize the use of nitrogen in finger millet in southern Odisha.”
The same questions in other papers
nanoparticle · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →nitrogen · growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →nitrogen · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →nanoparticle · growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →application · growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
13 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →application · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
55 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 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.