Paper · 2011 · Nonwood Forest Research

Effects of biogas fertilizer application on growth status of Camellia oleifera seedlings

Zeng Guang-yu

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In order to research effects of biogas fertilizer application on growth status of Camellia oleifera seedlings,effects of biogas fertilizer,chemical fertilizer,mixed fertilizer of biogas slurry and chemical fertilizer and the control on C.oleifera growth and soil fertility were experimented with pot.The results indicated that applicating biogas residue as base fertilizer and biogas slurry for topdressing could stimulate growing of C.oleifera seedlings and improve soil fertility.The height increment in biogas fertilizer treatment was(38.23±3.95) cm,and it was significant.The increments of ground diameter and crown were 19.4% and 18.37%,respectively,and it was not significantly higher than the control.The leaf area was(1587.97±37.56) mm2,highly significantly bigger than the control.Number,length and base diameter of new shoots per plant in biogas fertilizer treatment were(12.57±1.28),(51.27±2.83) cm and(1.95±0.05) mm,respectively.The length of new shoot was significantly higher than the control and the base diameter was highly significantly higher than the control.The chlorophyll content in biogas fertilizer treatment was(2.005±0.042) mg·g-1.applicating biogas residue as base fertilizer and biogas slurry for topdressing could greatly increase the contents of organic matter,total N,available N,exchangeable Ca,Mg,effective Cu,and Zn.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biogas fertilizer treatment increased seedling height by a significant amount.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Treatment
biogas fertilizer treatmente0
Outcome
height incremente0
Direction
incremente0
Value
(38.23±3.95) cme0

Not reportedComparator

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The height increment in biogas fertilizer treatment was(38.23±3.95) cm,and it was significant.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 482–576 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Ground diameter increased by 19.4%, without a significant difference from control.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Outcome
ground diametere0
Direction
incrementse0
Value
19.4%e0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The increments of ground diameter and crown were 19.4% and 18.37%,respectively,and it was not significantly higher than the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 576–708 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Crown increased by 18.37%, without a significant difference from control.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Outcome
crowne0
Direction
incrementse0
Value
18.37%e0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The increments of ground diameter and crown were 19.4% and 18.37%,respectively,and it was not significantly higher than the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 576–708 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biogas fertilizer produced significantly larger leaf area than control.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Outcome
leaf areae0
Direction
biggere0
Value
(1587.97±37.56) mm2e0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The leaf area was(1587.97±37.56) mm2,highly significantly bigger than the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 708–790 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

New shoots per plant numbered 12.57±1.28 under biogas fertilizer.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Treatment
biogas fertilizer treatmente0
Outcome
Numbere0
Value
(12.57±1.28)e0

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Number,length and base diameter of new shoots per plant in biogas fertilizer treatment were(12.57±1.28),(51.27±2.83) cm and(1.95±0.05) mm,respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–941 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

New shoots were significantly longer than control under biogas fertilizer.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Outcome
length of new shoote0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The length of new shoot was significantly higher than the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–1006 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

New shoot base diameter was highly significantly greater than control.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Outcome
base diametere0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the base diameter was highly significantly higher than the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1078 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biogas fertilizer seedlings had chlorophyll content of 2.005±0.042 mg·g-1.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Treatment
biogas fertilizer treatmente0
Outcome
chlorophyll contente0
Value
(2.005±0.042) mg·g-1e0

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The chlorophyll content in biogas fertilizer treatment was(2.005±0.042) mg·g-1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1157 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biogas residue and slurry increased soil organic matter, nitrogen, calcium, magnesium, copper, and zinc measures.

Taxon
Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
Treatment
biogas residue as base fertilizer and biogas slurry for topdressinge0
Outcome
contents of organic matter,total N,available N,exchangeable Ca,Mg,effective Cu,and Zne0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleifera · TaxonUSDA Agricultural Research Service · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“applicating biogas residue as base fertilizer and biogas slurry for topdressing could greatly increase the contents of organic matter,total N,available N,exchangeable Ca,Mg,effective Cu,and Zn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1157–1350 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia oleifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–78 · show in text ↑

fertilization · nutrient: content · Camellia oleifera (tea-oil Camellia)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

fertilization · growth · Camellia oleifera (tea-oil Camellia)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.