Abstract
The preservation of nutrient capital, soil fertility, and carbon (C) sequestration capacity in Mediterranean olive groves requires evaluation of agricultural practices beyond short-term productivity. We aim to contribute with a mechanistic understanding on the effects that the preservation of herbaceous cover and the use of chemical fertilizers have on the performance of olive trees and on the biogeochemical cycles of the agroecosystem. We compared nutrient fluxes and aboveground leafy stocks in an olive grove that had been organically managed for more than 60 years, in a treatment in which the annual spontaneous herbaceous cover was maintained (H), and after two years of shift to conventional management treatments in which the growth of herbaceous vegetation was avoided by the use of herbicides (NH), and where exclusion of the herbaceous cover is also combined with the supply of mineral fertilizers (NHF). Maintenance of herbaceous vegetation in H contributed to the retention of a high aboveground capital of C and nutrients, particularly nitrogen, (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) that were about 2.9, 3.9 and 7.4 times greater than in NH, respectively. The permanence of herbaceous cover stimulated olive tree leaf litter decomposition rates by about 86 % and increased nutrient release. However, the H treatment led to a 37 % decrease in olive yield and lowered olive foliar N and P content as negative short-term effects. The addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid form in NHF resulted inefficient to improve olive tree nutritional status and olive production, and decelerated olive tree litter decomposition rates by 21 % and nutrient release. The nutrient retention in organic forms in the fast-growing species of herbaceous covers and the progressive nutrient release as litter decomposes may contribute to regulate and better adapt nutrient availability to the nutrient requirements of olive trees.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Maintained herbaceous cover retained higher aboveground nitrogen than no cover, about 2.9 times.
- Taxon
- olive trees
Olea europaeat0 - Treatment
- Maintenance of herbaceous vegetatione0
- Outcome
- nitrogene0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 2.9e0
- Comparator
- NHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maintenance of herbaceous vegetation in H contributed to the retention of a high aboveground capital of C and nutrients, particularly nitrogen, (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) that were about 2.9, 3.9 and 7.4 times greater than in NH, respectively.”
t0“performance of olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Maintained herbaceous cover retained higher aboveground phosphorus than no cover, about 3.9 times.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- Maintenance of herbaceous vegetatione0
- Outcome
- phosphoruse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 3.9e0
- Comparator
- NHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maintenance of herbaceous vegetation in H contributed to the retention of a high aboveground capital of C and nutrients, particularly nitrogen, (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) that were about 2.9, 3.9 and 7.4 times greater than in NH, respectively.”
t0“performance of olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Maintained herbaceous cover retained higher aboveground potassium than no cover, about 7.4 times.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- Maintenance of herbaceous vegetatione0
- Outcome
- potassiume0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7.4e0
- Comparator
- NHe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maintenance of herbaceous vegetation in H contributed to the retention of a high aboveground capital of C and nutrients, particularly nitrogen, (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) that were about 2.9, 3.9 and 7.4 times greater than in NH, respectively.”
t0“performance of olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbaceous cover stimulated olive leaf litter decomposition by about 86%.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- herbaceous covere0
- Outcome
- olive tree leaf litter decomposition ratese0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
- Value
- 86 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The permanence of herbaceous cover stimulated olive tree leaf litter decomposition rates by about 86 % and increased nutrient release.”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbaceous cover increased nutrient release from olive leaf litter.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- herbaceous covere0
- Outcome
- nutrient releasee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The permanence of herbaceous cover stimulated olive tree leaf litter decomposition rates by about 86 % and increased nutrient release.”
Claim · model-written summary
The cover treatment decreased olive yield by 37%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, the H treatment led to a 37 % decrease in olive yield and lowered olive foliar N and P content as negative short-term effects.”
Claim · model-written summary
The cover treatment lowered olive foliar nitrogen and phosphorus content.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- H treatmente0
- Outcome
- olive foliar N and P contente0
- Direction
- lowerede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, the H treatment led to a 37 % decrease in olive yield and lowered olive foliar N and P content as negative short-term effects.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mineral fertilizer did not improve olive nutritional status or production.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid forme0
- Outcome
- olive tree nutritional status and olive productione0
- Direction
- inefficient to improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid form in NHF resulted inefficient to improve olive tree nutritional status and olive production, and decelerated olive tree litter decomposition rates by 21 % and nutrient release.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mineral fertilizer decelerated olive litter decomposition by 21%.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid forme0
- Outcome
- olive tree litter decomposition ratese0
- Direction
- deceleratede0
- Value
- 21 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid form in NHF resulted inefficient to improve olive tree nutritional status and olive production, and decelerated olive tree litter decomposition rates by 21 % and nutrient release.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mineral fertilizer decelerated nutrient release.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid forme0
- Outcome
- nutrient releasee0
- Direction
- deceleratede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of fertilizers (N, P, K, and Mg) in mineral and solid form in NHF resulted inefficient to improve olive tree nutritional status and olive production, and decelerated olive tree litter decomposition rates by 21 % and nutrient release.”
The same questions in other papers
potassium · nutrient: content · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
phosphorus · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
nitrogen · nutrient: content · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →potassium · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →nitrogen · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →fertilization · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 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.