Paper · 2020 · Bulletin of the National Research Centre/Bulletin of the National Research Center

Effect of biofertilizer and organic fertilization on growth, nutrient contents and fresh yield of dill (Anethum graveolens)

Shaimaa I. M. Elsayed; A. A. Glala; Aboelfetoh M. Abdalla; et al.

11
claims
23
verbatim quotes
40
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Background Two cultivars (Balady and Dukat) of dill plants were grown in the Experimental Farm Station of Agriculture Faculty, Cairo University, during two seasons of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. This investigation aims to determine the response of two dill cultivars to seven fertilizer treatments, i.e., control, 100% mineral fertilizer, 100% biofertilizer, 100% organic fertilizer, 50% organic fertilizer, 100% organic fertilizer with biofertilizer, and 50% organic fertilizer with biofertilizer. Data on plant height, leaf number, and some chemical composition such as antioxidant and nitrate accumulation were recorded in the vegetative growth stage. Results The results demonstrated that dill cv. Dukat gave the highest plants (cm), maximum leaf number per plant, pigment content (mg/g), total carbohydrates (%), nitrogen, and phosphorus percentages in the vegetative growth stage. Meanwhile, dill cv. Balady recorded the maximum potassium percentage and low content of nitrate accumulation (mg/kg) in the vegetative growth stage. Both dill cultivars contained antioxidants without significant differences between them. The best fertilization treatments were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer for plant height (cm), leaf number per plant, pigment content, antioxidant percentage, total carbohydrate percentage, and N and P percentages of two dill genotypes. On the other hand, 50% organic fertilization with biofertilizers was recorded as the best treatment for nitrate accumulation and K percentage with two dill cultivars. Conclusion These results prove that chemical fertilizers could be completely replaced by organic sources supplemented by NPK Symbion without any negative effect on dill vegetative growth and or nutrient contents.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dill cultivar Dukat had the highest plants and the maximum leaf number per plant in the vegetative growth stage.

Material
Dukate0
Outcome
highest plants (cm), maximum leaf number per plante1

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“dill cv. Dukat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–713 · show in text ↑
e1

“highest plants (cm), maximum leaf number per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 723–773 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dill cultivar Dukat had the highest pigment content and total carbohydrates in the vegetative growth stage.

Material
Dukate0
Outcome
pigment content (mg/g), total carbohydrates (%)e1

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“dill cv. Dukat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–713 · show in text ↑
e1

“pigment content (mg/g), total carbohydrates (%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–822 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dill cultivar Dukat had the highest nitrogen and phosphorus percentages in the vegetative growth stage.

Material
Dukate0
Outcome
nitrogen, and phosphorus percentagese1

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“dill cv. Dukat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–713 · show in text ↑
e1

“nitrogen, and phosphorus percentages in the vegetative growth stage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–891 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dill cultivar Balady recorded the maximum potassium percentage in the vegetative growth stage.

Material
Baladye0
Outcome
maximum potassium percentagee1

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“dill cv. Balady”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 904–919 · show in text ↑
e1

“maximum potassium percentage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–961 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dill cultivar Balady had a low content of nitrate accumulation (mg/kg) in the vegetative growth stage.

Material
Baladye0
Outcome
low content of nitrate accumulation (mg/kg)e1

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“dill cv. Balady”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 904–919 · show in text ↑
e1

“low content of nitrate accumulation (mg/kg)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1009 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Both dill cultivars contained antioxidants, without significant differences between them.

Outcome
antioxidantse0

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both dill cultivars contained antioxidants without significant differences between them”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1042–1129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The best treatments for plant height and leaf number per plant of the two dill genotypes were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer.

Treatment
100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizere0
Outcome
plant height (cm), leaf number per plante1
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“dill (Anethum graveolens)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 98–123 · show in text ↑
e0

“The best fertilization treatments were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1244 · show in text ↑
e1

“plant height (cm), leaf number per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1289 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The best treatments for pigment content, antioxidant percentage and total carbohydrate percentage of the two dill genotypes were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer.

Treatment
100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizere0
Outcome
pigment content, antioxidant percentage, total carbohydrate percentagee1
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“dill (Anethum graveolens)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 98–123 · show in text ↑
e0

“The best fertilization treatments were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1244 · show in text ↑
e1

“pigment content, antioxidant percentage, total carbohydrate percentage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1291–1361 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The best treatments for N and P percentages of the two dill genotypes were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer.

Treatment
100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizere0
Outcome
N and P percentagese1
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“dill (Anethum graveolens)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 98–123 · show in text ↑
e0

“The best fertilization treatments were 100% organic fertilization with biofertilizer and 100% chemical fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1131–1244 · show in text ↑
e1

“N and P percentages”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1367–1386 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

50% organic fertilization with biofertilizers was the best treatment for nitrate accumulation and K percentage in the two dill cultivars.

Treatment
50% organic fertilization with biofertilizerse0
Outcome
nitrate accumulation and K percentagee0
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“dill (Anethum graveolens)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 98–123 · show in text ↑
e0

“50% organic fertilization with biofertilizers was recorded as the best treatment for nitrate accumulation and K percentage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1429–1551 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that chemical fertilizers could be completely replaced by organic sources supplemented by NPK Symbion without negative effect on dill vegetative growth or nutrient contents.

Outcome
vegetative growth and or nutrient contentse0

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

Anethum graveolens
Anethum graveolens · TaxonTepeyac · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“chemical fertilizers could be completely replaced by organic sources supplemented by NPK Symbion without any negative effect on dill vegetative growth and or nutrient contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1613–1788 · show in text ↑

fertilization · nutrient: content · Anethum graveolens (dill)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · nutrient: content · Anethum graveolens (dill)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · physiology: pigments · Anethum graveolens (dill)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

fertilization · growth · Anethum graveolens (dill)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

fertilization · physiology: pigments · Anethum graveolens (dill)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.