Paper · 2016 · Agricultural Science Digest - A Research Journal

Effect of foliar application of nano iron and manganese chelated on yield and yield component of canola (Brassica napus L.) under waterdeficit stress at different plant growth stages

Hossein Zahedi; Leila Pourjafar; Younes Sharghi

6
claims
13
verbatim quotes
17
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

In order to study the effect of nano- iron and manganese fertilizer, a field experiment was conducted at 2013-2014 growing season at the Research Farm in Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran. Experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design arrangement in split plot with three replications. Three irrigation regimes (without water deficit stress, water deficit stress at vegetative stage and water deficit stress at reproductive stage) were randomized to the main plots and combinations of foliar nano-iron and nano-manganese application as were randomized to the sub plots. Statistical analysis showed that irrigation and spraying regimes and their interactions had significant effect on most of the measured traits. Water deficit stress significantly reduced yield and yield components of RGS canola variety. The most reduction was observed in plants under water deficit condition at reproductive stage. Use of micronutrients increased canola grain yield. The maximum grain yield was observed in plants that treated with iron sulfate 1 per thousand + manganese sulfate 1.5 per thousand. In general, low concentration levels of iron and manganese foliar application was more effective on plants for reduction harmful effect of water deficit levels than high micronutrient concentrations.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Water deficit stress significantly reduced yield and yield components of RGS canola compared with no water deficit.

Material
RGSe0
Treatment
Water deficit stresse0
Outcome
yield and yield componentse0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
without water deficit stresse6

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

“Water deficit stress significantly reduced yield and yield components of RGS canola variety”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–853 · show in text ↑
e6

“without water deficit stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 361–389 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The largest reduction was in canola plants under water deficit at the reproductive stage.

Treatment
water deficit condition at reproductive stagee1
Outcome
most reductione1
Direction
most reductione1
Comparator
water deficit stress at vegetative stagee7

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

e1

“The most reduction was observed in plants under water deficit condition at reproductive stage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 855–948 · show in text ↑
e7

“water deficit stress at vegetative stage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 391–431 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Micronutrient use increased canola grain yield.

Treatment
micronutrientse2
Outcome
grain yielde2
Direction
increasede2

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

e2

“Use of micronutrients increased canola grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1000 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The maximum canola grain yield occurred with iron sulfate 1 per thousand + manganese sulfate 1.5 per thousand.

Treatment
iron sulfate 1 per thousand + manganese sulfate 1.5 per thousande3
Outcome
grain yielde3
Direction
maximume3

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

e3

“The maximum grain yield was observed in plants that treated with iron sulfate 1 per thousand + manganese sulfate 1.5 per thousand”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1002–1131 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low concentrations of foliar iron and manganese were more effective than high micronutrient concentrations in reducing the harmful effect of water deficit on canola.

Treatment
low concentration levels of iron and manganese foliar applicatione4
Outcome
reduction harmful effect of water deficit levelse4
Direction
more effectivee4
Comparator
high micronutrient concentrationse4

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

e4

“low concentration levels of iron and manganese foliar application was more effective on plants for reduction harmful effect of water deficit levels than high micronutrient concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1145–1331 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation and spraying regimes and their interactions had a significant effect on most measured traits of canola.

Treatment
irrigation and spraying regimese5
Outcome
most of the measured traitse5

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

e5

“irrigation and spraying regimes and their interactions had significant effect on most of the measured traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–760 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 97–103 · show in text ↑

iron atom · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results agree

9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

micronutrient · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

drought · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

55 papers: 4 positive, 51 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

51 papers more in this group

See all 55 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.