Abstract
Considerable nitrogen (N) losses from intensive vegetable systems have become an important source of environmental damage. A high-efficiency N application to minimize N pollution and improve production is urgently needed. Here, we conducted field experiments to identify the effects of a single application of controlled-release urea (CRU), conventional urea (CU), and chicken manure (CM) on N losses and yields improvement in a greenhouse tomato system in Beijing, China. Five treatments were carried out: no N control (CK), lower rate of CRU with CU and CM (CRN1), medium rate of CRU with CU and CM (CRN2), higher rate of CRU with CU and CM (CRN3), and conventional fertilization (CN). The results showed that the single application of CRU, CU, and CM reduced the nitrate N concentration and N2O emissions by 22 to 79% and 39 to 51%, respectively, compared with the conventional fertilization . Based on the N application rate, the average nitrate N concentration showed an exponential increase, and the cumulative N2O emissions showed a linear increase. Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively. The apparent N surplus of the CRN1 and CRN2 treatments was reduced by 39% and 13% relative to the CN treatment, whereas the CRN3 treatment was as high as that of the CN treatment. It can be concluded that applying CRU, CU, and CM at the higher rate hardly improved the yield but increased the risk of N losses, whereas the lower and medium rates of CRU could reduce N pollution and improve production. The CRN2 treatment, reducing the CRU rate by 25%, with the highest economic efficiency, was the best choice to achieve greater yields with less environmental impacts in greenhouse tomato systems. Abbreviations: CRU, controlled-release urea; CU, conventional urea; CM, chicken manure; DAT, days after transplanting.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
A single application of CRU, CU and CM reduced nitrate N concentration by 22 to 79% compared with conventional fertilization.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- single application of CRU, CU, and CMe0
- Outcome
- nitrate N concentratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 22 to 79%e0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“the single application of CRU, CU, and CM reduced the nitrate N concentration and N2O emissions by 22 to 79% and 39 to 51%, respectively, compared with the conventional fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
A single application of CRU, CU and CM reduced N2O emissions by 39 to 51% compared with conventional fertilization.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- single application of CRU, CU, and CMe0
- Outcome
- N2O emissionse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 39 to 51%e0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“the single application of CRU, CU, and CM reduced the nitrate N concentration and N2O emissions by 22 to 79% and 39 to 51%, respectively, compared with the conventional fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Average nitrate N concentration increased exponentially with N application rate.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- N application ratee0
- Outcome
- average nitrate N concentratione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- exponentiale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Based on the N application rate, the average nitrate N concentration showed an exponential increase”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative N2O emissions increased linearly with N application rate.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- N application ratee0
- Outcome
- cumulative N2O emissionse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- lineare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Based on the N application rate, the average nitrate N concentration showed an exponential increase, and the cumulative N2O emissions showed a linear increase.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN1 lowered fertilization cost by 44% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN1e0
- Outcome
- fertilization coste0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 44%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN2 lowered fertilization cost by 22% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN2e0
- Outcome
- fertilization coste0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN3 lowered fertilization cost by 3.4% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN3e0
- Outcome
- fertilization coste0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 3.4%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN1 increased tomato yield by 9.6% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN1e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- raisinge0
- Value
- 9.6%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN2 increased tomato yield by 17% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN2e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- raisinge0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN3 increased tomato yield by 2.0% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN3e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- raisinge0
- Value
- 2.0%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“Compared to the CN treatment, the CRN1, CRN2, and CRN3 treatments decreased fertilization cost by 44%, 22%, and 3.4%, while raising yields by 9.6%, 17%, and 2.0%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN1 reduced apparent N surplus by 39% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN1e0
- Outcome
- apparent N surpluse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 39%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“The apparent N surplus of the CRN1 and CRN2 treatments was reduced by 39% and 13% relative to the CN treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN2 reduced apparent N surplus by 13% relative to CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN2e0
- Outcome
- apparent N surpluse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“The apparent N surplus of the CRN1 and CRN2 treatments was reduced by 39% and 13% relative to the CN treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
CRN3 had an apparent N surplus as high as CN.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CRN3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- apparent N surpluse1
- Direction
- as high ase0
- Comparator
- CN treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomato”
e0“the CRN3 treatment was as high as that of the CN treatment”
e1“The apparent N surplus of the CRN1 and CRN2 treatments was reduced by 39% and 13% relative to the CN treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended CRN2 as the best choice for higher yields and lower environmental impacts in greenhouse tomato systems.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- CRN2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- best choice to achieve greater yields with less environmental impactse0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Setting
- greenhouse tomato systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CRN2 treatment, reducing the CRU rate by 25%, with the highest economic efficiency, was the best choice to achieve greater yields with less environmental impacts in greenhouse tomato systems.”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
73 papers more in this group
See all 77 papers →nitrogen · environment: emissions · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
225 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
267 papers more in this group
See all 271 papers →fertilization · environment: emissions · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.