Abstract
A 2-year study evaluated the effects of chemical nitrogen fertilizer and organic fertilizer under conventional and reduced tillage. Tillage systems were subplots, and composted cattle manure (25 tons ha−1, CCM), nitrogen fertilizer (N; 40 kg N ha−1), CCM+N (12.5 tons CCM+20 kg N ha−1), and no urea N or manure added control (CONT) were sub-subplots. Highest yield, 1000-seed weight, fruit length, and plant height occurred in CCM+N, but were not significantly different from those using just N. Increase in yield for CCM, CCM+N, and N treated plots compared to CONT were 28%, 46%, and 40%, respectively. Plots treated with CCM or CCM+N contained greater soil organic carbon (SOC) than plots treated with N or CONT. SOC was significantly higher in reduced tillage compared with conventional tillage. Highest total soil nitrogen and seed N content were observed in plots receiving CCM+N, followed by N, and CCM. The combined application of 12.5 ton CCM and 20 kg N ha−1 N fertilizer produced acceptable yields while reducing environmental impact. Reduced tillage did not affect yield, but positively affected SOC. Thus, both systems have potential as alternative strategies because both can improve the highly diminished soils of southern Iran.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N had the highest chickpea yield, without a significant difference from N alone.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Highest yield, 1000-seed weight, fruit length, and plant height occurred in CCM+N, but were not significantly different from those using just N.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N had the highest chickpea 1000-seed weight, without a significant difference from N alone.
- Taxon
- Chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- CCM+Ne0
- Outcome
- 1000-seed weighte0
- Direction
- Higheste0
- Comparator
- Ne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Highest yield, 1000-seed weight, fruit length, and plant height occurred in CCM+N, but were not significantly different from those using just N.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N had the highest chickpea fruit length, without a significant difference from N alone.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Highest yield, 1000-seed weight, fruit length, and plant height occurred in CCM+N, but were not significantly different from those using just N.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N had the highest chickpea plant height, without a significant difference from N alone.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Highest yield, 1000-seed weight, fruit length, and plant height occurred in CCM+N, but were not significantly different from those using just N.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM increased chickpea yield by 28% relative to CONT.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- CCMe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- Increasee0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Comparator
- CONTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Increase in yield for CCM, CCM+N, and N treated plots compared to CONT were 28%, 46%, and 40%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N increased chickpea yield by 46% relative to CONT.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- CCM+Ne0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- Increasee0
- Value
- 46%e0
- Comparator
- CONTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Increase in yield for CCM, CCM+N, and N treated plots compared to CONT were 28%, 46%, and 40%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
N increased chickpea yield by 40% relative to CONT.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Ne0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- Increasee0
- Value
- 40%e0
- Comparator
- CONTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Increase in yield for CCM, CCM+N, and N treated plots compared to CONT were 28%, 46%, and 40%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM or CCM+N plots had greater soil organic carbon than N or control plots.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- CCM or CCM+Ne0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbone0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- N or CONTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Plots treated with CCM or CCM+N contained greater soil organic carbon (SOC) than plots treated with N or CONT.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage produced significantly higher soil organic carbon than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- reduced tillagee0
- Outcome
- SOCe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“SOC was significantly higher in reduced tillage compared with conventional tillage.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N gave the highest total soil nitrogen, followed by N then CCM.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- CCM+Ne0
- Outcome
- total soil nitrogene0
- Direction
- Higheste0
- Comparator
- N, and CCMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Highest total soil nitrogen and seed N content were observed in plots receiving CCM+N, followed by N, and CCM.”
Claim · model-written summary
CCM+N gave the highest seed N content, followed by N then CCM.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- CCM+Ne0
- Outcome
- seed N contente0
- Direction
- Higheste0
- Comparator
- N, and CCMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Highest total soil nitrogen and seed N content were observed in plots receiving CCM+N, followed by N, and CCM.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage did not affect chickpea yield.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Reduced tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“Reduced tillage did not affect yield, but positively affected SOC.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined manure and nitrogen fertilizer was recommended as providing acceptable yields while reducing environmental impact.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- 12.5 ton CCM and 20 kg N ha−1 N fertilizere0
- Outcome
- acceptable yields while reducing environmental impacte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“The combined application of 12.5 ton CCM and 20 kg N ha−1 N fertilizer produced acceptable yields while reducing environmental impact.”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
92 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →tillage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 papers →tillage · soil: chemistry · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)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.