Abstract
The aim of this paper was to compare dicyandiamide (DCD) and 3,4 dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) as inhibitors of ammonium oxidation and nitrate leaching after applying fertilizer to a maize (Zea mays L.) crop grown under Mediterranean conditions. The effects of nitrification inhibitors were also compared to those of N fertilization without inhibitors and with split N application. In plots fertilized with ammonium sulphate nitrate (ASN), either DCD or DMPP lengthened ammonium presence in soil and produced lower soil NO3- concentrations (30% lower than in plots with no inhibitor). The use of DCD or DMPP achieved significant reductions in nitrate leaching. DCD showed excellent properties for controlling nitrate leaching, taking into account the fact that grain yield and N accumulated by plant were similar for the ASN-DCD and ASN treatments applied at the same N doses. The split N treatment did not offer any advantages in terms of leached nitrate, either with the use of single ammonium sulphate nitrate (ASN) or with single application of nitrification inhibitors. The nitrification inhibitors did not increase the yield but did not reduce it either. The drainage rate was the most important component of nitrate leaching. The low drainage values of the first year resulted in a sharp decline of nitrate leaching. However, the experiment of the second year, showed clear differences in nitrate leaching between treatments due to the greater drainage.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
DCD or DMPP extended ammonium presence in soil.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“either DCD or DMPP lengthened ammonium presence in soil”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DCD or DMPP lowered soil nitrate concentration by 30% relative to plots without inhibitor.
- Treatment
- DCD or DMPPe0
- Outcome
- soil NO3- concentrationse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Comparator
- plots with no inhibitore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“either DCD or DMPP lengthened ammonium presence in soil and produced lower soil NO3- concentrations (30% lower than in plots with no inhibitor)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
DCD or DMPP significantly reduced nitrate leaching.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use of DCD or DMPP achieved significant reductions in nitrate leaching”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain yield was similar under ASN-DCD and ASN at equal nitrogen doses.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield and N accumulated by plant were similar for the ASN-DCD and ASN treatments applied at the same N doses”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant nitrogen accumulation was similar under ASN-DCD and ASN at equal nitrogen doses.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield and N accumulated by plant were similar for the ASN-DCD and ASN treatments applied at the same N doses”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Split nitrogen application offered no advantage for nitrate leaching.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The split N treatment did not offer any advantages in terms of leached nitrate”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrification inhibitors did not increase or reduce maize yield.
- Treatment
- nitrification inhibitorse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not increase the yield but did not reduce it eithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nitrification inhibitors did not increase the yield but did not reduce it either”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Drainage rate was the most important component of nitrate leaching.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The drainage rate was the most important component of nitrate leaching”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Low drainage in the first year coincided with sharply lower nitrate leaching.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The low drainage values of the first year resulted in a sharp decline of nitrate leaching”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater second-year drainage revealed clear between-treatment differences in nitrate leaching.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“experiment of the second year, showed clear differences in nitrate leaching between treatments due to the greater drainage”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
cyanoguanidine · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →nitrification inhibitor · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
240 papers more in this group
See all 244 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 403 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
485 papers more in this group
See all 489 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.