Paper · 1959 · Soil Science Society of America Journal

Influence of Certain Soil Fumigation Treatments on the Response of Tobacco to Ammonium and Nitrate Forms of Nitrogen

C. B. McCants; E. O. Skogley; W. G. Woltz

11
claims
20
verbatim quotes
16
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Fertilizer mixtures in which the nitrogen was allammonium, all‐nitrate or equal parts ammonium and nitrate were applied in conjunction with the following soil fumigation treatments: not‐fumigated, Dowfume W‐85 (ethylene dibromide), Shell DD (dichloropropene and dichloropropane), and methyl bromide. Data were obtained on the effect of fumigation and N treatments on ( 1 ) the relative levels of ammonium and nitrate N in the soil during the growing season, ( 2 ) the ammonium and halogen content in the tobacco leaf at certain stages of growth, and ( 3 ) the yield and certain properties of the cured tobacco leaf. Methyl bromide and Shell DD reduced nitrification to a greater degree than did Dowfume W‐85. Three weeks after transplanting, the ammonium N and halogen contents in tobacco leaves from the ammonium N treatment were higher than from the nitrate N treatment on soil fumigated with Shell DD or methyl bromide, but no different for the Dowfume W‐85 or not‐fumigated treatments. The yield and quality index of tobacco from the Shell DD and methyl bromide fumigation treatments increased with increasing percentage of the total N applied in the nitrate form. With Dowfume W‐85, the highest yield was from the mixture of ammonium and nitrate N. There were no differences in yield or quality among N treatments on soil not‐fumigated. For all fumigation treatments, the percentage N and percentage nicotine in the cured leaf were higher where ammonium N than where nitrate N was applied.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Methyl bromide reduced nitrification more than Dowfume W‐85.

Treatment
Methyl bromidee0
Outcome
nitrificatione0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
Dowfume W‐85e0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Methyl bromide and Shell DD reduced nitrification to a greater degree than did Dowfume W‐85.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–717 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shell DD reduced nitrification more than Dowfume W‐85.

Treatment
Shell DDe0
Outcome
nitrificatione0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
Dowfume W‐85e0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Methyl bromide and Shell DD reduced nitrification to a greater degree than did Dowfume W‐85.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–717 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At three weeks, ammonium treatment raised tobacco leaf ammonium and halogen contents relative to nitrate on Shell DD soil.

Organ / stage
leavese0
Treatment
ammonium N treatmente0
Outcome
ammonium N and halogen contentse0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
Shell DDe0
Comparator
nitrate N treatmente0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Three weeks after transplanting, the ammonium N and halogen contents in tobacco leaves from the ammonium N treatment were higher than from the nitrate N treatment on soil fumigated with Shell DD or methyl bromide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 718–930 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At three weeks, ammonium treatment raised tobacco leaf ammonium and halogen contents relative to nitrate on methyl bromide soil.

Organ / stage
leavese0
Treatment
ammonium N treatmente0
Outcome
ammonium N and halogen contentse0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
methyl bromidee0
Comparator
nitrate N treatmente0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Three weeks after transplanting, the ammonium N and halogen contents in tobacco leaves from the ammonium N treatment were higher than from the nitrate N treatment on soil fumigated with Shell DD or methyl bromide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 718–930 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At three weeks, ammonium and halogen contents did not differ between nitrogen forms under Dowfume W‐85.

Treatment
ammonium Ne1
Outcome
ammonium N and halogen contentse1
Direction
no differente0
Qualifier
Dowfume W‐85e0
Comparator
nitrate N treatmente1

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but no different for the Dowfume W‐85 or not‐fumigated treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 932–998 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ammonium N and halogen contents in tobacco leaves from the ammonium N treatment were higher than from the nitrate N treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At three weeks, ammonium and halogen contents did not differ between nitrogen forms without fumigation.

Treatment
ammonium Ne1
Outcome
ammonium N and halogen contentse1
Direction
no differente0
Qualifier
not‐fumigatede0
Comparator
nitrate N treatmente1

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but no different for the Dowfume W‐85 or not‐fumigated treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 932–998 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ammonium N and halogen contents in tobacco leaves from the ammonium N treatment were higher than from the nitrate N treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–880 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under Shell DD, yield and quality index rose with nitrate nitrogen percentage.

Treatment
Shell DDe0
Outcome
yield and quality indexe0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
increasing percentage of the total N applied in the nitrate forme0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield and quality index of tobacco from the Shell DD and methyl bromide fumigation treatments increased with increasing percentage of the total N applied in the nitrate form.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 999–1177 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under methyl bromide, yield and quality index rose with nitrate nitrogen percentage.

Treatment
methyl bromidee0
Outcome
yield and quality indexe0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
increasing percentage of the total N applied in the nitrate forme0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield and quality index of tobacco from the Shell DD and methyl bromide fumigation treatments increased with increasing percentage of the total N applied in the nitrate form.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 999–1177 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With Dowfume W‐85, mixed ammonium and nitrate gave the highest yield.

Treatment
mixture of ammonium and nitrate Ne0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
Dowfume W‐85e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With Dowfume W‐85, the highest yield was from the mixture of ammonium and nitrate N.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1178–1262 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without fumigation, nitrogen treatments did not differ in yield or quality.

Treatment
N treatmentse0
Outcome
yield or qualitye0
Direction
no differencese0
Qualifier
not‐fumigatede0
Comparator
N treatmentse0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were no differences in yield or quality among N treatments on soil not‐fumigated.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1263–1350 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium nitrogen gave higher cured leaf nitrogen and nicotine percentages than nitrate nitrogen across fumigation treatments.

Organ / stage
cured leafe0
Treatment
ammonium Ne0
Outcome
percentage N and percentage nicotinee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
nitrate Ne0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For all fumigation treatments, the percentage N and percentage nicotine in the cured leaf were higher where ammonium N than where nitrate N was applied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1351–1503 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–74 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results differ

103 papers: 85 positive, 18 negative or no effect

84 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

99 papers more in this group

See all 103 papers →

nitrogen · quality: general · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 28 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction

This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 papers →

nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

45 papers: 35 positive, 10 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

41 papers more in this group

See all 45 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.