Paper · 2017 · Scientific Reports

Tillage and nitrogen fertilization enhanced belowground carbon allocation and plant nitrogen uptake in a semi-arid canola crop–soil system

Jharna Rani Sarker; Bhupinder Pal Singh; Xinhua He; et al.

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
35
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) allocation and assimilation are coupled processes, likely influencing C accumulation, N use efficiency and plant productivity in agro-ecosystems. However, dynamics and responses of these processes to management practices in semi-arid agro-ecosystems are poorly understood. A field-based 13 CO 2 and urea- 15 N pulse labelling experiment was conducted to track how C and N allocation and assimilation during canola growth from flowering to maturity were affected by short-term (2-year) tillage (T) and no-till (NT) with or without 100 kg urea-N ha −1 (T-0, T-100, NT-0, NT-100) on a Luvisol in an Australian semi-arid region. The T-100 caused greater (P < 0.05) belowground C allocation and higher (P < 0.05) translocation of soil N to shoots and seeds, compared to other treatments. Microbial N uptake was rapid and greatest in the fertilized ( cf . non-fertilized) treatments, followed by a rapid release of microbial immobilized N, thus increasing N availability for plant uptake. In contrast, management practices had insignificant impact on soil C and N stocks, aggregate stability, microbial biomass, and 13 C retention in aggregate-size fractions. In conclusion, tillage and N fertilization increased belowground C allocation and crop N uptake and yield, possibly via enhancing root–microbial interactions, with minimal impact on soil properties.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

T-100 increased belowground carbon allocation versus other treatments.

Treatment
T-100e0
Outcome
belowground C allocatione0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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 T-100 caused greater (P < 0.05) belowground C allocation and higher (P < 0.05) translocation of soil N to shoots and seeds, compared to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 662–818 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

T-100 increased soil nitrogen translocation to shoots and seeds versus other treatments.

Organ / stage
shoots and seedse0
Treatment
T-100e0
Outcome
translocation of soil N to shoots and seedse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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 T-100 caused greater (P < 0.05) belowground C allocation and higher (P < 0.05) translocation of soil N to shoots and seeds, compared to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 662–818 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilized treatments had the greatest microbial nitrogen uptake, followed by release of immobilized nitrogen that increased plant nitrogen availability.

Treatment
fertilizede0
Outcome
Microbial N uptakee0
Direction
greateste0
Comparator
non-fertilizede0

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

“Microbial N uptake was rapid and greatest in the fertilized ( cf . non-fertilized) treatments, followed by a rapid release of microbial immobilized N, thus increasing N availability for plant uptake.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–1019 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization increased nitrogen availability for plant uptake after microbial nitrogen release.

Outcome
N availability for plant uptakee0
Qualifier
rapid release of microbial immobilized Ne0

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

“followed by a rapid release of microbial immobilized N, thus increasing N availability for plant uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 915–1018 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Management practices had insignificant effects on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks, aggregate stability, microbial biomass, and carbon retention in aggregates.

Treatment
management practicese0
Outcome
soil C and N stocks, aggregate stability, microbial biomass, and 13 C retention in aggregate-size fractionse0

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

“management practices had insignificant impact on soil C and N stocks, aggregate stability, microbial biomass, and 13 C retention in aggregate-size fractions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1033–1189 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage and nitrogen fertilization increased crop yield.

Treatment
tillage and N fertilizatione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0

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

“tillage and N fertilization increased belowground C allocation and crop N uptake and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1206–1296 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage and nitrogen fertilization increased crop nitrogen uptake.

Treatment
tillage and N fertilizatione0
Outcome
crop N uptakee0
Direction
increasede0

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

“tillage and N fertilization increased belowground C allocation and crop N uptake and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1206–1296 · show in text ↑
t0

“canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑

tillage · nutrient: content · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

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

50 papers: 42 positive, 8 negative or no effect

41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

109 papers: 95 positive, 14 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

105 papers more in this group

See all 109 papers →

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

378 papers: 337 positive, 41 negative or no effect

336 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

374 papers more in this group

See all 378 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.