Paper · 2014

Canola productivity as affected by nitrogen fertilizer sources and rates grown in calcareous soil irrigated with saline water

Osman Eam; F. A. F. Zahran

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A B S T R A C T A field experiment was carried out in two successive winter seasons of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 to study the effect of nitrogen sources (ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate and urea) and rates (30, 45 and 60 kg N/fed.) on the productivity and nutritional value of canola plant grown in calcareous soil at El -Areish Agricultural Research station, )ARC) North Sinai Governorate, Egypt (lat. 31.05 and long. 33.50 and 30.57m above the mean sea level). The main results were: In most cases, ammonium nitrate achieved a significant positive effect on most yield characteristics and seed yield as well as N, P, K, Oil and protein percentages as well as Oil yield in both seasons. However, branches number, plant highest, N content and protein % of seed did not respond significantly toward the nitrogen sources in first season, flowering 100 % in the second one as well as flowering 50 %, P content and oil % in both seasons. The highest nitrogen level significantly affected positively all canola tested parameters compared to other levels in both season. Generally, the highest obtained values for most characteristics of canola under investigation were achieved when the plants received ammonium nitrate with highest rate. Meanwhile, there were insignificant differences due to the interacted treatments on No. of branches / plant in the first season.

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

Ammonium nitrate significantly improved most yield traits and seed yield.

Treatment
ammonium nitratee0
Outcome
most yield characteristics and seed yielde0
Direction
positive effecte0
Qualifier
both seasonse0

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

“ammonium nitrate achieved a significant positive effect on most yield characteristics and seed yield as well as N, P, K, Oil and protein percentages as well as Oil yield in both seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 503–689 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium nitrate significantly improved seed nutrient, oil and protein percentages and oil yield.

Treatment
ammonium nitratee0
Outcome
N, P, K, Oil and protein percentages as well as Oil yielde0
Direction
positive effecte0

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

“ammonium nitrate achieved a significant positive effect on most yield characteristics and seed yield as well as N, P, K, Oil and protein percentages as well as Oil yield in both seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 503–689 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Several first season traits did not respond significantly to nitrogen source.

Treatment
nitrogen sourcese0
Outcome
branches number, plant highest, N content and protein % of seede0
Direction
did not responde0
Qualifier
first seasone0

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

“branches number, plant highest, N content and protein % of seed did not respond significantly toward the nitrogen sources in first season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–836 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Flowering at 100% did not respond significantly to nitrogen source in season two.

Treatment
nitrogen sourcese1
Outcome
flowering 100 %e0
Qualifier
the second onee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“flowering 100 % in the second one”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 838–871 · show in text ↑
e1

“toward the nitrogen sources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–820 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Flowering at 50%, phosphorus and oil percentages did not significantly respond to nitrogen source in either season.

Treatment
nitrogen sourcese1
Outcome
flowering 50 %, P content and oil %e0
Qualifier
both seasonse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“flowering 50 %, P content and oil % in both seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 883–935 · show in text ↑
e1

“toward the nitrogen sources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–820 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest nitrogen level significantly increased all tested canola parameters relative to lower levels.

Treatment
highest nitrogen levele0
Outcome
all canola tested parameterse0
Direction
positivelye0
Qualifier
both seasone0
Comparator
other levelse0

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 nitrogen level significantly affected positively all canola tested parameters compared to other levels in both season.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 936–1066 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium nitrate at the highest rate produced the highest values for most canola traits.

Treatment
ammonium nitrate with highest ratee0
Outcome
most characteristics of canolae0
Direction
higheste0

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 obtained values for most characteristics of canola under investigation were achieved when the plants received ammonium nitrate with highest rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1235 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment interactions did not significantly alter branches per plant in the first season.

Treatment
interacted treatmentse0
Outcome
No. of branches / plante0
Direction
insignificant differencese0
Qualifier
first seasone0

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

“there were insignificant differences due to the interacted treatments on No. of branches / plant in the first season.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1364 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑

ammonium nitrate · quality: oil · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
    Ammonium nitrate at 60 kg N/fed. was most effective for seed and oil yield.

    RESPONSE OF RAPESEED PLANT TO NITROGEN NUTRITION. · 2000 · compared with different applied nitrogen sources and levels

    Same direction

See all 3 papers →

ammonium nitrate · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

nitrogen · phenology · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

nitrogen · organism · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

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

37 papers: 34 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 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.