Abstract
Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency in grapevine production is an important objective for solving the trade-off between improving yield and quality in agroecosystems and reducing environmental impacts. Influence of soil nitrogen fertilization and Fe foliar application on iron dynamics in soil and grapevine leaves of the ‘Graševina’ cultivar on carbonate soil was conducted in a two-year study in 2018 and 2019. The experiment was settled in three replicates on a total of seven fertilization treatments that differed in used form of nitrogen fertilizer and foliar application of Fe before and after the flowering of the grapevine: control (C); calcium ammonium nitrate (KAN); calcium ammonium nitrate + foliar Fe (KAN+F); ammonium sulfate (AS); ammonium sulfate + foliar Fe (AS+F); ammonium sulfonitrate + foliar Fe (ASN+F); urea + foliar Fe (U+F). Mineral fertilization with acid-forming nitrogen fertilizers (AS and ASN) significantly affected local acidification of alkaline soil, i.e., reducing the actual and exchangeable soil pH reaction, which resulted in increased soil Fe availability. Despite the increase in soil iron availability, no increased iron bioaccumulation in the grapevine leaves was found in the flowering and veraison stages at treatments where foliar fertilization was omitted. Of all the observed treatments, only foliar fertilization had a positive effect on iron concentration in the grapevine leaves, which leads to the conclusion that this is an effective way to solve iron deficiency symptoms and chlorosis occurrence. The use of mineral fertilizers with acid-forming nitrogen fertilizers for many years can result in a reduction of required foliar treatments and thus significantly affect the ecological and economic aspects of grape production. Thus, integrated iron management is needed to meet the needs of the grapevine for this micronutrient and to reduce the occurrence of leaf chlorosis in carbonate soil.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Acid-forming nitrogen fertilizers reduced soil pH.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mineral fertilization with acid-forming nitrogen fertilizers (AS and ASN) significantly affected local acidification of alkaline soil, i.e., reducing the actual and exchangeable soil pH reaction, which resulted in increased soil Fe availability”
e1“grapevine leaves of the ‘Graševina’ cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf iron did not increase when foliar fertilizer was omitted.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no increased iron bioaccumulation in the grapevine leaves was found in the flowering and veraison stages at treatments where foliar fertilization was omitted”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilization increased grapevine leaf iron concentration.
- Treatment
- foliar fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- iron concentration in the grapevine leavese0
- Direction
- positive effecte0
- Comparator
- all the observed treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Of all the observed treatments, only foliar fertilization had a positive effect on iron concentration in the grapevine leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated iron management was recommended to reduce leaf chlorosis.
- Outcome
- integrated iron managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“integrated iron management is needed to meet the needs of the grapevine for this micronutrient and to reduce the occurrence of leaf chlorosis in carbonate soil”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →application · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.