Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38288818›Full record

ArticleRecent advances in food, nutrition & agriculture2024

Enhancement of Wheat (

Acharya Balkrishna, Nidhi Sharma, Ajay Kumar Gautam, Vedpriya Arya, Vikram Khelwade

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Recent advances in food, nutrition & agriculture, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Acharya BalkrishnaPatanjali Herbal Research Department, Patanjali Research Institute, Haridwar 249405, India.
Nidhi SharmaPatanjali Herbal Research Department, Patanjali Research Institute, Haridwar 249405, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6123-5194
Ajay Kumar GautamPatanjali Herbal Research Department, Patanjali Research Institute, Haridwar 249405, India.
Vedpriya AryaPatanjali Herbal Research Department, Patanjali Research Institute, Haridwar 249405, India.
Vikram KhelwadePatanjali Herbal Research Department, Patanjali Research Institute, Haridwar 249405, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSewage sludge is a by-product of urbanization that poses environmental and health challenges. However, it can also be a valuable source of organic matter and nutrients for agriculture.

methodThis study aimed to assess the potential of five types of organic fertilizers derived from treated Ganga sludge on the growth of wheat plants. The Patanjali Organic Research Institute has developed five types of granulated organic fertilizer from the stabilized Ganga sludge.

resultsThe results showed that the organic fertilizers significantly improved the wheat performance in terms of plant height, biomass accumulation, chlorophyll content, leaf area and other yield parameters. Furthermore, the fertilizers ameliorated soil physicochemical attributes and augmented the availability of macro- and micronutrients. Importantly, levels of heavy metals in soil and wheat grains remained within permissible limits, affirming the safety and appropriateness of these fertilizers for wheat cultivation.

conclusionThis study underscores the efficient utilization of treated Ganga sludge as a valuable organic fertilizer source, proposing a sustainable and ecologically sound approach for sewage sludge management and enhancement of agricultural productivity.

Indexed as

FertilizersSewageSoilTriticumAgricultureBiomassMetals, HeavyTropical ClimateFertilizersMetals, HeavySewageSoileco-friendly managementGanga sludgemicronutrientorganic fertilizerssewage.wheat

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.