Abstract
In the context of phosphorus (P) exhaustion and low P use efficiency (PUE) in crop production, a field trial was designed on a low-P soil in southwestern Germany in 2020 and 2021 to investigate the effects of P fertilizer type and liming on maize growth and P uptake and PUE. The experimental factors were (i) two P fertilizer types, rock phosphate (RP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP); (ii) lime application, lime and no lime; and (iii) two maize cultivars. The results showed that RP resulted in a lower leaf area index and light interception compared with DAP, a 33% lower silage yield, and a 29% lower P content at harvest. The PUE of RP was 18%, which was 37% lower than DAP. Soil liming reduced shoot biomass and led to 35% less shoot P content at the six-leaf stage. The maize cultivar Stabil expressed higher yielding and P acquisition characteristics. In conclusion, DAP cannot be replaced by placed RP, regardless of the lime application in silage maize production in this study. Future research on the PUE of maize cultivars should also consider root characteristics in response to P fertilizer type and soil pH.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Rock phosphate gave lower leaf area index and light interception than DAP in maize.
- Treatment
- rock phosphate (RP)e0
- Outcome
- leaf area index and light interceptione1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- DAPe1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e0“two P fertilizer types, rock phosphate (RP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP)”
e1“RP resulted in a lower leaf area index and light interception compared with DAP, a 33% lower silage yield, and a 29% lower P content at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage yield with RP was 33% lower than with DAP in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e1“RP resulted in a lower leaf area index and light interception compared with DAP, a 33% lower silage yield, and a 29% lower P content at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
P content at harvest with RP was 29% lower than with DAP in maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e1“RP resulted in a lower leaf area index and light interception compared with DAP, a 33% lower silage yield, and a 29% lower P content at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
The phosphorus use efficiency of RP was 18%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e2“The PUE of RP was 18%, which was 37% lower than DAP”
Claim · model-written summary
The phosphorus use efficiency of RP was 37% lower than that of DAP.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e2“The PUE of RP was 18%, which was 37% lower than DAP”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil liming reduced shoot biomass compared with no lime.
- Organ / stage
- shoote3
- Treatment
- Soil liminge3
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Comparator
- no limee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e3“Soil liming reduced shoot biomass and led to 35% less shoot P content at the six-leaf stage”
e4“lime application, lime and no lime”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil liming led to 35% less shoot P content at the six-leaf stage than no lime.
- Organ / stage
- six-leaf stagee3
- Treatment
- Soil liminge3
- Outcome
- shoot P contente3
- Direction
- lesse3
- Value
- 35%e3
- Comparator
- no limee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e3“Soil liming reduced shoot biomass and led to 35% less shoot P content at the six-leaf stage”
e4“lime application, lime and no lime”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize cultivar Stabil had higher yielding and P acquisition characteristics.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Two Maize Cultivars”
e5“The maize cultivar Stabil expressed higher yielding and P acquisition characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
DAP cannot be replaced by placed RP in silage maize production, regardless of lime application.
Verbatim
e6“DAP cannot be replaced by placed RP, regardless of the lime application in silage maize production in this study”
The same questions in other papers
lime · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →lime · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 71 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →phosphorus · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 252 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
302 papers more in this group
See all 306 papers →phosphorus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 549 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
623 papers more in this group
See all 627 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.