. 2024 Jan 2;13(1):152. doi: 10.3390/foods13010152

Table 4.

Comparison of the effects of silicon and zinc fertilizer treatments on the grain quality of Nanjing 46.

Comparison between Treatments	Brown Rice (%)	Milled Rice (%)	Head Rice (%)	PV (cP)	HV (cP)	FV (cP)	BDV (cP)
Treatment and nontreatment ⁽¹⁾	−0.2	−0.4	3.3 *	75	46	24	29
Application of Si and Zn fertilizer ⁽²⁾	−0.6 *	−0.9 *	−3.9 *	36	−38	−49	74
Si-B and Zn-B	0.0	0.0	−3.0	167 *	36	53	131 *
Si-L and Zn-L	−0.6 **	−0.6	−1.8	−47	61	51	−108
Si-B + Si-L and Zn-B + Zn-L	−1.0 *	−2.0 **	−7.0 **	−11	−210 *	−251 *	199 **
Soil topdressing and foliar spraying ⁽³⁾	−0.3	−0.4	−1.9	−139	−152	−177	13
Si-B and Si-L	0.1	0.1	−2.9	−74	−172	−185	97
Zn-B and Zn-L	−0.5 *	−0.5	−1.7	−288 **	−146	−187	−142 *
Si-B + Zn-B and Si-L + Zn-L	−0.5 *	−0.7 *	−1.1	−54	−138	−158	84
Comparison between Treatments	SBV (cP)	CSV (cP)	TV (Score)	AC (%)	GC (mm)		2-AP (µg/g⁻¹)
Treatment and nontreatment ⁽¹⁾	−50	−22	3.0 **	−0.2	7.6 **		0.0561 **
Application of Si and Zn fertilizer ⁽²⁾	−85	−11	−0.5	−0.6	−3.2 *		−0.0373 **
Si-B and Zn-B	−114	17	0.1	0.1	−2.3		0.0120
Si-L and Zn-L	98	−10	−0.1	−1.1 **	−5.3 **		−0.1020 **
Si-B + Si-L and Zn-B + Zn-L	−240 **	−41 *	−1.6	−0.9 **	−2.0		−0.0220 **
Soil topdressing and foliar spraying ⁽³⁾	−38	−25	−0.3	−0.2	1.8		0.0067
Si-B and Si-L	−111	−14	−0.5	0.5 *	5.0		0.0670 **
Zn-B and Zn-L	100	−41 *	−0.8	−0.8 **	2.0		−0.0470 **
Si-B + Zn-B and Si-L + Zn-L	−104	−20	0.3	−0.2	−1.7		0.0000

⁽¹⁾ Difference between the average values of all the treatments except for the control and the average value of the control; ⁽²⁾ difference between the average values of silicon fertilizer treatments (Si-B, Si-L, and Si-B + Si-L) and the zinc fertilizer treatments (Zn-B, Zn-L, and Zn-B + Zn-L); ⁽³⁾ difference between the average values of the soil topdressing treatments (Si-B, Zn-B, and Si-B + Zn-B) and the foliar spraying treatments (Si-L, Zn-L, and Si-L + Zn-L).* and ** represent significant differences at 5% and 1%, respectively.