Paper · 1999 · Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research

RESPONSE OF ONION TO FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SOME MICRONUTRIENTS

Zaghalol T. Sliman; Mohamed A. Abdelhakim; Aly A. Omran

17
claims
34
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at the Agricultural Research Station, Sids, Beni Sweif Governorate during two successive seasons (1995-1996 and 1996-1997) to study the effect of foliar spray of Fe, Mn, Zn, or Cu applied as sulfate and B applied as borax on onion yield (Allium cepa L.) and its chemical components. Results showed that the highest dry yield was obtained by foliar application of ZnSO4 followed by the application of borax. Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively. On the other hand, copper treatment resulted in a slight, but not significant, yield decrease. Foliar spray treatments did not increase micronutrient concentrations except for spraying with ZnSO4, which increased Zn to its highest concentration and content. Significant correlation coefficients between P and Zn (-0.792*), Fe and Zn (+0.734*), Fe and Cu (-0.828*), Mn and Fe (-0.801*), and Mn and Cu (-0.809*) were recorded.

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 17

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fe foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 9.7% relative to control in the first growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Fee0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
9.7%e0
Qualifier
first growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mn foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 2.2% relative to control in the first growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Mne0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
2.2%e0
Qualifier
first growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zn foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 23.6% relative to control in the first growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Zne0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
23.6%e0
Qualifier
first growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 11.5% relative to control in the first growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Be0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
11.5%e0
Qualifier
first growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fe foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 0.0% relative to control in the second growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Fee0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
0.0%e0
Qualifier
second growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mn foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 5.6% relative to control in the second growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Mne0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
5.6%e0
Qualifier
second growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zn foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 27.8% relative to control in the second growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Zne0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
27.8%e0
Qualifier
second growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B foliar treatment changed onion dry yield by 18.5% relative to control in the second growing season.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Be0
Outcome
onion yielde1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
18.5%e0
Qualifier
second growing seasone0
Comparator
controle0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increment percentages were 9.7%, 2.2%, 23.6%, and 11.5% for the first growing season and 0.0%, 5.6%, 27.8%, and 18.5% for the second growing season over the control for Fe, Mn, Zn, and B treatments, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 440–652 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZnSO4 foliar application gave the highest onion dry yield.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
foliar application of ZnSO4e0
Outcome
dry yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
application of boraxe0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Results showed that the highest dry yield was obtained by foliar application of ZnSO4 followed by the application of borax.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 316–439 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Copper treatment slightly decreased onion yield without statistical significance.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
copper treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
decreasee0
Qualifier
slighte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“copper treatment resulted in a slight, but not significant, yield decrease.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 672–747 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar sprays other than ZnSO4 did not increase onion micronutrient concentrations.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
Foliar spray treatmentse0
Outcome
micronutrient concentrationse0
Direction
did not increasee0
Qualifier
except for spraying with ZnSO4e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar spray treatments did not increase micronutrient concentrations except for spraying with ZnSO4, which increased Zn to its highest concentration and content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 748–910 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZnSO4 spray increased onion Zn concentration and content to their highest levels.

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Treatment
spraying with ZnSO4e0
Outcome
Zn to its highest concentration and contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar spray treatments did not increase micronutrient concentrations except for spraying with ZnSO4, which increased Zn to its highest concentration and content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 748–910 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Onion P and Zn were significantly correlated (coefficient -0.792*).

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Compound
Pe0
Outcome
Zne0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
-0.792*e0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant correlation coefficients between P and Zn (-0.792*), Fe and Zn (+0.734*), Fe and Cu (-0.828*), Mn and Fe (-0.801*), and Mn and Cu (-0.809*) were recorded.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–1077 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Onion Fe and Zn were significantly correlated (coefficient +0.734*).

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Compound
Fee0
Outcome
Zne0
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
+0.734*e0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant correlation coefficients between P and Zn (-0.792*), Fe and Zn (+0.734*), Fe and Cu (-0.828*), Mn and Fe (-0.801*), and Mn and Cu (-0.809*) were recorded.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–1077 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Onion Fe and Cu were significantly correlated (coefficient -0.828*).

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Compound
Fee0
Outcome
Cue0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
-0.828*e0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant correlation coefficients between P and Zn (-0.792*), Fe and Zn (+0.734*), Fe and Cu (-0.828*), Mn and Fe (-0.801*), and Mn and Cu (-0.809*) were recorded.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–1077 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Onion Mn and Fe were significantly correlated (coefficient -0.801*).

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Compound
Mne0
Outcome
Fee0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
-0.801*e0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant correlation coefficients between P and Zn (-0.792*), Fe and Zn (+0.734*), Fe and Cu (-0.828*), Mn and Fe (-0.801*), and Mn and Cu (-0.809*) were recorded.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–1077 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Onion Mn and Cu were significantly correlated (coefficient -0.809*).

Taxon
Allium cepa L.Allium cepae1
Compound
Mne0
Outcome
Cue0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
-0.809*e0

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant correlation coefficients between P and Zn (-0.792*), Fe and Zn (+0.734*), Fe and Cu (-0.828*), Mn and Fe (-0.801*), and Mn and Cu (-0.809*) were recorded.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 911–1077 · show in text ↑
e1

“onion yield (Allium cepa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–286 · show in text ↑

manganese atom · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Results differ

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

copper atom · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Results differ

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

zinc atom · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Results differ

36 papers: 33 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative
    FYM, NPK and sulfur, with or without boron and zinc, gave maximum bulb weight.

    Response of Onion to NPK, S and Micronutrients · 2020

    Opposite directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

boron atom · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 20 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
    FYM, NPK and sulfur, with or without boron and zinc, gave maximum bulb weight.

    Response of Onion to NPK, S and Micronutrients · 2020

    Opposite directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

zinc sulfate · molecular: metabolites · Allium cepa (onion)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 →

iron atom · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

zinc sulfate · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
    Zinc sulfate nutripriming raised dry matter production to 20.7 mg.

    Seed priming studies for vigour enhancement in onion CO onion (5) · 2017 · compared with unprimed, hydroprimed and sand matrix primed seeds

    Same direction

  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

application · molecular: metabolites · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

8 of 10 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.