3.8 Article

Urea and slow-release nitrogen in wheat grown inoculaded with Azospirillum

期刊

APPLIED RESEARCH & AGROTECHNOLOGY
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 15-26

出版社

UNIV ESTADUAL CENTRO-OESTE
DOI: 10.5935/PAeT.V10.N3.02

关键词

Triticum aestivum; Nitrogen fertilization covering; Urease inhibitor; diazotrophic

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is known that the broadcast application of slow-release nitrogen sources are more efficient in soil with low humidity, similar to urea in adequate moisture conditions in the soil. Thus aimed to evaluate the behavior of the crop of wheat grown inoculated Azospirillum brasilense with different levels of nitrogen (N) coverage provided by urea and slow-release fertilizer (SRF) in different environments. For this experiment was carried out in a randomized block design in a factorial 2 x 4. The first factor were the sources of nitrogen (urea and SRF) and the second by N rates covering (0.0; 60.0; 120.0 and 180.0 kg ha(-1)), being conducted in two environments Marechal Candido Rondon - PR (MCR) and Corbelia - PR (COR). In the culture maturation was evaluated: mass and number of grains per spike, spike length, number of spikelets, thousand grain weight, yield, grain moisture, hectolitre weight and harvest index. The results showed that the sources have provided increase in the mass and number of grains per spike and thousand grain weight. Considering that the wheat crop in both sites was inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense. Doses of 102 kg ha(-1) N and 118.56 kg ha(-1) N promoted maximum number of grains per spike and thousand grain weight, the COR environment. The environment MCR, use of 142.49 kg ha(-1) N and 163.33 kg ha(-1) N resulted in maximum productivity and grain moisture, averages, respectively. In COR, use of 118.56 kg ha(-1) N in urea source provided maximum productivity while SRF source linearly increased productivity up to 180 kg ha(-1) of N. Already in MCR both sources increase productivity up to a dose of 142.5 kg ha(-1) of N.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据