Abstract
Slow release fertilizer has become a new trend for saving chemical fertilizer consumption and to minimize environmental pollution. This study was aimed to use neem cake as a natural material for coating urea for improving fertilizer efficiency and reduce N-losses. Also to investigate the application of neem cake coated urea with or without foliar nano iron on wheat productivity. Neem cake coated urea and nano iron were prepared. Two experiments (incubation and field) were carried out. Incubation experiment was conducted using soil samples to study the efficiency of the use neem cake coated urea on NH4+ release under conditions of saturated and field capacity for nine weeks. A field experiments was carried out to study the effect of neem coated urea with or without nano iron as foliar spray on N-use efficiency, wheat yield, components and nitrate leaching. The results of incubation experiment showed that, the release of NH4+ was thehighest under saturated conditions as compared with field capacity. The release of NH4+ from neem coated urea was slow for a long period of time compared to uncoated urea. The data of the field experiment showed that the application of neem coated urea fertilizers led to a lower concentration of nitrate in drainage water. A highest increase in the grain yield of wheat was recorded by application of neem coated urea fertilizers with foliar nano iron compared to uncoated urea as a control. Results illustrated that controlled released urea fertilizer improved yield by 24% and enhanced N uptake up to 77% as compared to uncoated urea as control treatment. Applied of neem coated urea and nano iron foliar has increased nitrogen uptake and recovery efficiency of wheat. From the results obtained, it could be concluded that, the possibility of using neem coated urea as well as foliar spraying with nano iron for rationalize the use of nitrogen chemical fertilizers, thereby reducing the pollution as well as reducing the costs of agricultural production.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Saturated soil released more ammonium than soil at field capacity.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the release of NH4+ was thehighest under saturated conditions as compared with field capacity”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem coated urea released ammonium slowly over longer periods than uncoated urea.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The release of NH4+ from neem coated urea was slow for a long period of time compared to uncoated urea”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem coated urea reduced nitrate concentration in drainage water.
- Treatment
- neem coated urea fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- concentration of nitrate in drainage watere0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“application of neem coated urea fertilizers led to a lower concentration of nitrate in drainage water”
Claim · model-written summary
Coated urea with foliar nano iron gave the highest wheat grain yield increase versus uncoated urea.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- neem coated urea fertilizers with foliar nano irone0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- uncoated ureae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A highest increase in the grain yield of wheat was recorded by application of neem coated urea fertilizers with foliar nano iron compared to uncoated urea as a control”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled release urea improved yield by 24% versus uncoated urea.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- controlled released urea fertilizere0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Comparator
- uncoated ureae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Yield”
e0“controlled released urea fertilizer improved yield by 24% and enhanced N uptake up to 77% as compared to uncoated urea as control treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled release urea enhanced nitrogen uptake up to 77% versus uncoated urea.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- controlled released urea fertilizere0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 77%e0
- Comparator
- uncoated ureae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Yield”
e0“controlled released urea fertilizer improved yield by 24% and enhanced N uptake up to 77% as compared to uncoated urea as control treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem coated urea and foliar nano iron increased wheat nitrogen uptake and recovery efficiency.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- neem coated urea and nano iron foliare0
- Outcome
- nitrogen uptake and recovery efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applied of neem coated urea and nano iron foliar has increased nitrogen uptake and recovery efficiency of wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend coated urea and foliar nano iron to rationalize nitrogen fertilizer use and lower pollution and costs.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- neem coated urea as well as foliar spraying with nano irone0
- Outcome
- rationalize the use of nitrogen chemical fertilizerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat Yield”
e0“possibility of using neem coated urea as well as foliar spraying with nano iron for rationalize the use of nitrogen chemical fertilizers, thereby reducing the pollution as well as reducing the costs of agricultural production”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
70 papers more in this group
See all 74 papers →iron atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
95 papers more in this group
See all 99 papers →botanical · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →nanoparticle · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 papers →botanical · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
122 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
136 papers more in this group
See all 140 papers →nanoparticle · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
241 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
256 papers more in this group
See all 260 papers →application · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
256 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
271 papers more in this group
See all 275 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
409 papers in the same direction as this paper · 64 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
475 papers more in this group
See all 479 papers →8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.