Abstract
This studied the effect of method’s and efficiency application of nano- NPK fertilizer (0, 1 and 2. l-1) in addition to the soil or foliar spray on the vegetative growth of Olivetti noier and Thompson Seedless young grapevines grown under Nineveh Governorate during 2021 season. Applications three levels of nano- NPK 0, 2 and 4gm. as soil addition either alone or in combination with foliar application of nano- NPK sprayed three times at 0, 1 and 2.l-1 significantly promoted all vegetative growth traits, height and diameter of the main stem, number of leaves, chlorophyll concentration in leaves, leaf area and leaf area. Moreover, these treatments resulted of vegetative growth parameters compared with untreated (control). Result showed that fertilization with the addition of 4 gm. Nano NPK.l-1, led to a significant increase in the rates of height and diameter of the main stem, number of leaves, chlorophyll concentration in leaves. Foliar fertilization with 2 gm. Nano NPK l-1, led to a significant improving main stem diameter of seedling, leaf area, leaf area of seedling, chlorophyll concentration in leaves. Spray with 1 gm. Nano NPK l-1 led to a significant increase in the height of the main stem and the number of leaves per seedling. Thompson Seedless grape cv. over Olivetti noier cv. in height and diameter of the main stems, leaf area and the leaf area of the seedling.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Soil and foliar nano NPK applications significantly promoted stem height and diameter and leaf number and area versus untreated plants.
Verbatim
e0“Applications three levels of nano- NPK 0, 2 and 4gm. as soil addition either alone or in combination with foliar application of nano- NPK sprayed three times at 0, 1 and 2.l-1 significantly promoted all vegetative growth traits, height and diameter of the main stem, number of leaves, chlorophyll concentration in leaves, leaf area and leaf area.”
e1“Moreover, these treatments resulted of vegetative growth parameters compared with untreated (control).”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano NPK soil and foliar applications significantly promoted leaf chlorophyll concentration.
Verbatim
e0“Applications three levels of nano- NPK 0, 2 and 4gm. as soil addition either alone or in combination with foliar application of nano- NPK sprayed three times at 0, 1 and 2.l-1 significantly promoted all vegetative growth traits, height and diameter of the main stem, number of leaves, chlorophyll concentration in leaves, leaf area and leaf area.”
e1“Moreover, these treatments resulted of vegetative growth parameters compared with untreated (control).”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Addition of 4 gm nano NPK significantly increased main stem height and diameter and leaf number.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Treatment
- addition of 4 gm. Nano NPK.l-1e0
- Outcome
- height and diameter of the main stem, number of leavese0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“fertilization with the addition of 4 gm. Nano NPK.l-1, led to a significant increase in the rates of height and diameter of the main stem, number of leaves, chlorophyll concentration in leaves.”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Addition of 4 gm nano NPK significantly increased leaf chlorophyll concentration.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Treatment
- addition of 4 gm. Nano NPK.l-1e0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll concentration in leavese0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“fertilization with the addition of 4 gm. Nano NPK.l-1, led to a significant increase in the rates of height and diameter of the main stem, number of leaves, chlorophyll concentration in leaves.”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar nano NPK at 2 gm significantly improved stem diameter and leaf area.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Treatment
- Foliar fertilization with 2 gm. Nano NPK l-1e0
- Outcome
- main stem diameter of seedling, leaf areae0
- Direction
- improvinge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Foliar fertilization with 2 gm. Nano NPK l-1, led to a significant improving main stem diameter of seedling, leaf area, leaf area of seedling, chlorophyll concentration in leaves.”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar nano NPK at 2 gm significantly improved leaf chlorophyll concentration.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Treatment
- Foliar fertilization with 2 gm. Nano NPK l-1e0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll concentration in leavese0
- Direction
- improvinge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Foliar fertilization with 2 gm. Nano NPK l-1, led to a significant improving main stem diameter of seedling, leaf area, leaf area of seedling, chlorophyll concentration in leaves.”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying 1 gm nano NPK significantly increased main stem height and leaf number.
- Taxon
- grapet0
- Treatment
- Spray with 1 gm. Nano NPK l-1e0
- Outcome
- height of the main stem and the number of leaves per seedlinge0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Spray with 1 gm. Nano NPK l-1 led to a significant increase in the height of the main stem and the number of leaves per seedling.”
t0“grape cultivars (Vitis Vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Thompson Seedless exceeded Olivetti noier in stem height and diameter and leaf area.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless grape cv. over Olivetti noier cv. in height and diameter of the main stems, leaf area and the leaf area of the seedling.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →application · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →application · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →fertilization · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →application · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
83 papers more in this group
See all 87 papers →transgenic · yield · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
nanoparticle · physiology: pigments · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 of 11 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.