Paper · 2002 · Conicet

Effect of nitrogen sources on ammonia volatilization, grain yield and soil nitrogen losses in no-till wheat in an argentine soil

Marta Susana Zubillaga; Ma. De Las Mercedes Zubillaga; Susana Urricariet; et al.

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The ammonia losses under field conditions vary widely and these nitrogen losses can decrease crops yield. However, experiment with wheat in the Argentinean Pampas showed that yields are not related to the volatilization losses of several nitrogen fertilizers. We hypothesize that ammonia volatilization from urea was compensated with higher apparent soil mineralization rate and then, even with high ammonia volatilization from urea, wheat yields were not affected. We evaluated ammonia volatilization, apparent nitrogen mineralization, apparent nitrogen uptake efficiency, and their effects on wheat yields. The experiment was carried out with wheat grown in a no-till Typic Hapludoll, using urea, UAN and IBDU. Ammonia losses were 17.1% and 4.7% of N applied as urea and UAN, respectively; IBDU and control were low. Wheat yields were not affected by ammonia losses. The N uptake and N export was greater in fertilized treatments. For urea, the highest volatilization rate was compensated by the highest soil mineralization rate. From the sustainable agriculture point of view, the volatilization would be dangerous because the soil could tend to compensate that loss, thus impoverishing itself in native nitrogen.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea lost 17.1% of applied N as ammonia, compared with 4.7% for UAN.

Treatment
ureae1
Outcome
Ammonia lossese1
Direction
higherinferrede1
Value
17.1%e1
Qualifier
4.7%e1
Comparator
UANe1

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Ammonia losses were 17.1% and 4.7% of N applied as urea and UAN, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 713–790 · show in text ↑
e2

“The experiment was carried out with wheat grown in a no-till Typic Hapludoll, using urea, UAN and IBDU”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–711 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

UAN lost 4.7% of applied N as ammonia, lower than 17.1% for urea.

Treatment
UANe1
Outcome
Ammonia lossese1
Direction
lowerinferrede1
Value
4.7%e1
Qualifier
17.1%e1
Comparator
ureae1

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Ammonia losses were 17.1% and 4.7% of N applied as urea and UAN, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 713–790 · show in text ↑
e2

“The experiment was carried out with wheat grown in a no-till Typic Hapludoll, using urea, UAN and IBDU”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–711 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat yields were not affected by ammonia losses.

Treatment
ammonia lossese3
Outcome
Wheat yieldse3
Direction
not affectede3

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“The experiment was carried out with wheat grown in a no-till Typic Hapludoll, using urea, UAN and IBDU”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–711 · show in text ↑
e3

“Wheat yields were not affected by ammonia losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–867 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N uptake and N export were greater in fertilized treatments.

Treatment
fertilized treatmentse4
Outcome
N uptake and N exporte4
Direction
greatere4

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“The experiment was carried out with wheat grown in a no-till Typic Hapludoll, using urea, UAN and IBDU”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–711 · show in text ↑
e4

“The N uptake and N export was greater in fertilized treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–931 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

For urea, the highest ammonia volatilization rate was compensated by the highest soil mineralization rate.

Treatment
ureae5
Outcome
soil mineralization ratee5
Direction
higheste5

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“The experiment was carried out with wheat grown in a no-till Typic Hapludoll, using urea, UAN and IBDU”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 609–711 · show in text ↑
e5

“For urea, the highest volatilization rate was compensated by the highest soil mineralization rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1030 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · environment: emissions · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

29 papers: 19 positive, 10 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

25 papers more in this group

See all 29 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.