Paper · 2007 · Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B

Influence of nitrogen and sulfur fertilization on quality of canola (Brassica napus L.) under rainfed conditions

G. Ahmad; A. Jan; M. Arif; et al.

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
125
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Cereal Crops Research Institute, Pirsabak, Nowshera, Pakistan, during winter 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 to evaluate the effect of nitrogen and sulfur levels and methods of nitrogen application on canola (Brassica napus L. cv. Bulbul-98) under rainfed conditions. Four levels of S (0, 10, 20, and 30 kg/ha) and three levels of N (40, 60, and 80 kg/ha) and a control treatment with both nutrients at zero level were included in the experiments. Sulfur levels were applied at sowing while N levels were applied by three methods (100% soil application, 90% soil+10% foliar application, and 80% soil +20% foliar application). The experiments were laid out in randomized complete block (RCB) design having four replications. Oil content increased significantly up to 20 kg S/ha but further increase in S level did not enhance oil content. Glucosinolate content increased from 13.6 to 24.6 micromol/g as S rate was increased from 0 to 30 kg/ha. Protein content increased from 22.4% to 23.2% as S rate was increased from 0 to 20 kg/ha. Oil content responded negatively to the increasing N levels. The highest N level resulted in the highest values for protein (23.5%) and glucosinolate (19.9 micromol/g) contents. Methods of N application had no significant impact on any parameters under study.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Oil content increased significantly up to 20 kg S/ha.

Treatment
20 kg S/hae0
Outcome
Oil contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Oil content increased significantly up to 20 kg S/ha but further increase in S level did not enhance oil content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 752–865 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Further sulfur increases beyond 20 kg S/ha did not enhance oil content.

Treatment
further increase in S levele0
Outcome
oil contente0
Direction
did not enhancee0
Comparator
20 kg S/hae0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Oil content increased significantly up to 20 kg S/ha but further increase in S level did not enhance oil content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 752–865 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Glucosinolate content increased from 13.6 to 24.6 micromol/g as sulfur rose from zero to 30 kg/ha.

Treatment
S rate was increased from 0 to 30 kg/hae0
Outcome
Glucosinolate contente0
Direction
increasede0
Value
13.6 to 24.6 micromol/ge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Glucosinolate content increased from 13.6 to 24.6 micromol/g as S rate was increased from 0 to 30 kg/ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 866–970 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Protein increased from 22.4% to 23.2% as sulfur rose from zero to 20 kg/ha.

Treatment
S rate was increased from 0 to 20 kg/hae0
Outcome
Protein contente0
Direction
increasede0
Value
22.4% to 23.2%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Protein content increased from 22.4% to 23.2% as S rate was increased from 0 to 20 kg/ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 971–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Oil content decreased with increasing nitrogen levels.

Treatment
increasing N levelse0
Outcome
Oil contente0
Direction
responded negativelye0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Oil content responded negatively to the increasing N levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1061–1121 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest nitrogen level gave the highest protein content, 23.5%.

Treatment
highest N levele0
Outcome
proteine0
Direction
higheste0
Value
23.5%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest N level resulted in the highest values for protein (23.5%) and glucosinolate (19.9 micromol/g) contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1238 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest nitrogen level gave the highest glucosinolate content, 19.9 micromol/g.

Treatment
highest N levele0
Outcome
glucosinolatee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
19.9 micromol/ge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest N level resulted in the highest values for protein (23.5%) and glucosinolate (19.9 micromol/g) contents.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1238 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen application methods did not significantly affect the studied quality parameters.

Treatment
Methods of N applicatione0
Outcome
parameters under studye0
Direction
no significant impacte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Methods of N application had no significant impact on any parameters under study.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1239–1320 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola (Brassica napus L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–87 · show in text ↑

sulfur atom · quality: protein · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

10 papers: 6 positive, 4 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

sulfur atom · quality: oil · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

24 papers: 19 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

nitrogen · quality: oil · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

64 papers: 31 positive, 33 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 papers →

nitrogen · quality: protein · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

37 papers: 34 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 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.