Paper · 2024 · RUDN Journal of Agronomy and Animal Industries

Application of nitrogen fertilizers to spring wheat on meadowchernozem soil in the Omsk Irtysh region

Natalya A. Voronkova; Nadezhda A. Tsyganova; Natalya F. Balabanova; et al.

8
claims
18
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

The effectiveness of fractional application of nitrogen fertilizers in cultivation of spring common wheat was studied in the conditions of the Omsk Irtysh region on meadow-chernozem medium-sized medium-humus heavy loamy soil. The research object was spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya. The purpose of the research was to establish the effectiveness of fractional application of nitrogen fertilizers depending on the level of labile phosphorus in meadow-chernozem soil on yield and grain quality of spring common wheat in the conditions of the Omsk Irtysh region. The field experiment had three factors (242): Factor A phosphorus background: 1. No fertilizers; 2. Application of P30 a. i./ha; factor B main application of ammonium nitrate in increasing doses: 0, N30, N45, N60; factor C foliar feeding with ammonium nitrate and carbamide at a dose of N30: 1. Once in heading stage; 2. Twice in heading stage and milky ripeness. It was found that the most effective was main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30; crop productivity in these variants increases by 4048 % in comparison with the nonfertilized variants due to the gain in 1000-seed weight (r = 0.400.42), productive stooling (r = 0.83). The agronomic profitableness of one kg of a. i./ha applied fertilizers in these variants was 21.5 and 19.9 kg of grain with 7.5 and 6.1 kg increase in protein content, respectively. Late foliar sprayings, regardless of their number, did not increase crop productivity and quality of wheat grain. Thus, fractional application of nitrogen fertilizers in years with insufficient moisture levels (hydrothermal index 0.60.7) is not effective.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Main nitrogen–phosphorus fertilization increased spring wheat productivity by 4048 % versus no fertilization.

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Material
Melodiyae0
Treatment
main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30e1
Outcome
crop productivitye1
Direction
increasese1
Value
4048 %e1
Comparator
nonfertilized variantse1

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30; crop productivity in these variants increases by 4048 % in comparison with the nonfertilized variants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1165 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The gain in 1000-seed weight was associated with wheat productivity in fertilized variants (r = 0.400.42).

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Organ / stage
seede1
Outcome
crop productivitye1
Qualifier
r = 0.400.42e1

Not reportedDirection

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“crop productivity in these variants increases by 4048 % in comparison with the nonfertilized variants due to the gain in 1000-seed weight (r = 0.400.42)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1216 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Productive stooling was associated with wheat productivity in fertilized variants (r = 0.83).

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30e2
Outcome
crop productivitye1
Qualifier
productive stooling (r = 0.83)e1

Not reportedDirection

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“crop productivity in these variants increases by 4048 % in comparison with the nonfertilized variants due to the gain in 1000-seed weight (r = 0.400.42), productive stooling (r = 0.83)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1248 · show in text ↑
e2

“main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1062 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The agronomic return from the fertilized variants was 21.5 and 19.9 kg of grain per kg of applied fertilizer active ingredient.

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Outcome
agronomic profitablenesse1
Value
21.5 and 19.9 kg of graine1

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“The agronomic profitableness of one kg of a. i./ha applied fertilizers in these variants was 21.5 and 19.9 kg of grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1250–1368 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fertilized variants increased wheat grain protein content by 7.5 and 6.1 kg, respectively.

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30e2
Outcome
protein contente1
Direction
increasee1
Value
7.5 and 6.1 kge1

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“The agronomic profitableness of one kg of a. i./ha applied fertilizers in these variants was 21.5 and 19.9 kg of grain with 7.5 and 6.1 kg increase in protein content, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1250–1431 · show in text ↑
e2

“main application of nitrogen-p hosphorus fertilizers in doses of N3045P30”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1062 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late foliar sprays did not increase wheat crop productivity.

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
Late foliar sprayingse1
Outcome
crop productivitye1
Direction
did not increasee1
Qualifier
regardless of their numbere1

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Late foliar sprayings, regardless of their number, did not increase crop productivity and quality of wheat grain.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1432–1545 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late foliar sprays did not increase wheat grain quality.

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
Late foliar sprayingse1
Outcome
quality of wheat graine1
Direction
did not increasee1

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“Late foliar sprayings, regardless of their number, did not increase crop productivity and quality of wheat grain.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1432–1545 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors concluded that fractional nitrogen application was ineffective in years with insufficient moisture.

Taxon
spring common wheatTriticum aestivume0
Outcome
fractional application of nitrogen fertilizerse1
Qualifier
years with insufficient moisture levels (hydrothermal index 0.60.7)e1

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

“spring common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cv. Melodiya”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 250–305 · show in text ↑
e1

“fractional application of nitrogen fertilizers in years with insufficient moisture levels (hydrothermal index 0.60.7) is not effective”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1552–1686 · show in text ↑

application · quality: general · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 27 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

nitrogen · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

454 papers: 400 positive, 54 negative or no effect

399 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

450 papers more in this group

See all 454 papers →

fertilization · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

566 papers: 501 positive, 65 negative or no effect

500 papers in the same direction as this paper · 56 in the opposite direction · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

562 papers more in this group

See all 566 papers →

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

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 795 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

873 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

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

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 papers →

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

3,438 papers: 3,115 positive, 323 negative or no effect

3,114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 284 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

3,434 papers more in this group

See all 3,438 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.