Paper · 2023 · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science

Effect of Humic Acid and the Level of Nano and Conventional Nitrogen on the Available and Absorbed Nitrogen Element and the Potato Yield

Ahmad S. H. Al-Hayani; Mohammed Obed Sallume

20
claims
43
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract A field experiment was carried out during the fall season of 2021 at the research station of the University of Anbar - College of Agriculture, to find out the effect of humic acid and the level of nano and conventional nitrogen in the prepared and absorbed nitrogen element and the yield of potato cultivar Rivera, the experiment included two factors: the two sources of nitrogen and their levels, represented by the traditional nitrogen NT 1 , NT 2 at the level of 150 and 300 kg N ha -1 in the form of (urea fertilizer) and the nano-nitrogen, Nn 1 , Nn 2 , Nn 3 at level 15, 30 and 45 kg N ha -1 sequentially in addition to the control treatment. The second factor was the addition of humic acid H 1 at the level of 100 kg ha -1 in addition to the control treatment (without addition) and according to the RCBD randomized complete block design with three replications. The results were statistically analyzed and the means of the coefficients were compared at the 0.05 probability level to test for the least significant difference. The results of the study showed the following: The treatments achieved a remarkable variation in nitrogen content in the vegetative part and tubers, and the interaction coefficients between humic acid and urea achieved the highest nitrogen content in the vegetative part and tubers, as well as the total nitrogen uptake. While the Nn 3 H 1 treatment achieved the highest value of the marketing outcome. The availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soil increased with the increase in fertilization levels for the two fertilizer exporters, and the highest availability was achieved in the presence of humic acid. There was a significant effect of adding humic acid on (AE), which amounted to 59.0% compared to 49.0%, and the lowest decrease in field efficiency was with conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments compared to the highest field efficiency achieved with nano-nitrogen addition treatments. While the highest value of the field efficiency when treating the interference was Nn 3 H 1 . The availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soil increased with the increase in fertilization levels for the two fertilizer exporters, and the highest availability was achieved in the presence of humic acid. There was a significant effect of adding humic acid on AE, which amounted to 59.0% compared to 49.0%, and the lowest decrease in field efficiency was with conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments compared to the highest field efficiency achieved with nano-nitrogen addition treatments. While the highest value of the field efficiency when treating the interference was Nn 3 H 1 . The availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soil increased with the increase in fertilization levels for the two fertilizer exporters, and the highest availability was achieved in the presence of humic acid. There was a significant effect of adding humic acid on (AE), which amounted to 59.0% compared to 49.0%, and the lowest decrease in field efficiency was with conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments compared to the highest field efficiency achieved with nano-nitrogen addition treatments. While the highest value of the field efficiency when treating the interference was Nn 3 H 1 . The addition of humic acid achieved an efficient nitrogen recovery NUE amounted to 60.13% compared to 44.45%. The treatment of adding nano-nitrogen Nn 1 , Nn 2 and Nn 3 recorded recovery efficiency of the element amounted to 82.47, 80.14 and 77.89% respectively, and was superior to the traditional fertilization treatments NT 1 , NT 2 , which amounted to 39.72, 29.81% respectively, while the dual interaction treatments achieved the highest recovery efficiency of the element which reached to the treatments of the nano-source Nn 1 H 1 , Nn 2 H 1 , Nn 3 H 1 (95.25, 92.08 and 88.71%) sequentially. Compared with the levels of the traditional source NT 1 H 1 , NT 2 H 1 (45.35 and 31.95%), respectively.

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 20

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The humic acid and urea interaction gave the highest nitrogen content in the vegetative part and tubers of potato.

Treatment
humic acid and ureae1
Outcome
nitrogen content in the vegetative part and tuberse1
Direction
higheste1

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the interaction coefficients between humic acid and urea achieved the highest nitrogen content in the vegetative part and tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1325 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The humic acid and urea interaction gave the highest total nitrogen uptake in potato.

Treatment
humic acid and ureae1
Outcome
total nitrogen uptakee2
Direction
higheste1

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the interaction coefficients between humic acid and urea achieved the highest nitrogen content in the vegetative part and tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1325 · show in text ↑
e2

“as well as the total nitrogen uptake”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1327–1363 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Nn 3 H 1 treatment gave the highest marketing outcome in potato.

Treatment
Nn 3 H 1e4
Outcome
marketing outcomee4
Direction
higheste4

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e4

“While the Nn 3 H 1 treatment achieved the highest value of the marketing outcome”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1365–1445 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil ammonium and nitrate availability increased with fertilization levels in potato.

Treatment
fertilization levelse5
Outcome
availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soile5
Direction
increasede5

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e5

“the marketing outcome. The availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soil increased with the increase in fertilization levels for the two fertilizer exporters”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1424–1584 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil ammonium and nitrate availability was highest in the presence of humic acid in potato.

Treatment
humic acide6
Outcome
availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soile6
Direction
higheste6

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e6

“the marketing outcome. The availability of ammonium and nitrate in the soil increased with the increase in fertilization levels for the two fertilizer exporters, and the highest availability was achieved in the presence of humic acid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1424–1657 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic acid had a significant effect on AE, which was 59.0% compared with 49.0% in potato.

Treatment
adding humic acide7
Outcome
AEe7
Value
59.0%e7
Qualifier
compared to 49.0%e7

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e7

“There was a significant effect of adding humic acid on AE, which amounted to 59.0% compared to 49.0%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2256–2356 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments gave the lowest decrease in field efficiency in potato.

Treatment
conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatmentse2
Outcome
field efficiencye2
Direction
lowest decreasee2

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e2

“on AE, which amounted to 59.0% compared to 49.0%, and the lowest decrease in field efficiency was with conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2308–2454 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano-nitrogen addition treatments gave the highest field efficiency compared with conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments in potato.

Treatment
nano-nitrogen addition treatmentse2
Outcome
field efficiencye2
Direction
higheste2
Comparator
conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatmentse2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e2

“on AE, which amounted to 59.0% compared to 49.0%, and the lowest decrease in field efficiency was with conventional nitrogen fertilizer treatments compared to the highest field efficiency achieved with nano-nitrogen addition treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2308–2543 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Nn 3 H 1 dual treatment gave the highest field efficiency in potato.

Treatment
Nn 3 H 1e3
Outcome
field efficiencye3
Direction
highest valuee3

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e3

“While the highest value of the field efficiency when treating the interference was Nn 3 H 1 . The addition of humic acid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3142–3262 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Humic acid addition gave an efficient nitrogen recovery (NUE) of 60.13% compared with 44.45% in potato.

Treatment
humic acide2
Outcome
NUEe2
Value
60.13%e2
Qualifier
compared to 44.45%e2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e2

“The addition of humic acid achieved an efficient nitrogen recovery NUE amounted to 60.13% compared to 44.45%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3236–3344 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano-nitrogen Nn 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 82.47, superior to traditional fertilization in potato.

Treatment
Nn 1e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Direction
superiore1
Value
82.47e1
Comparator
traditional fertilization treatmentse1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatment of adding nano-nitrogen Nn 1 , Nn 2 and Nn 3 recorded recovery efficiency of the element amounted to 82.47, 80.14 and 77.89% respectively, and was superior to the traditional fertilization treatments NT 1 , NT 2 , which amounted to 39.72, 29.81% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3346–3618 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano-nitrogen Nn 2 gave a recovery efficiency of 80.14, superior to traditional fertilization in potato.

Treatment
Nn 2e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Direction
superiore1
Value
80.14e1
Comparator
traditional fertilization treatmentse1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatment of adding nano-nitrogen Nn 1 , Nn 2 and Nn 3 recorded recovery efficiency of the element amounted to 82.47, 80.14 and 77.89% respectively, and was superior to the traditional fertilization treatments NT 1 , NT 2 , which amounted to 39.72, 29.81% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3346–3618 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano-nitrogen Nn 3 gave a recovery efficiency of 77.89, superior to traditional fertilization in potato.

Treatment
Nn 3e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Direction
superiore1
Value
77.89e1
Comparator
traditional fertilization treatmentse1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatment of adding nano-nitrogen Nn 1 , Nn 2 and Nn 3 recorded recovery efficiency of the element amounted to 82.47, 80.14 and 77.89% respectively, and was superior to the traditional fertilization treatments NT 1 , NT 2 , which amounted to 39.72, 29.81% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3346–3618 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Traditional nitrogen NT 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 39.72 in potato.

Treatment
NT 1e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
39.72e1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatment of adding nano-nitrogen Nn 1 , Nn 2 and Nn 3 recorded recovery efficiency of the element amounted to 82.47, 80.14 and 77.89% respectively, and was superior to the traditional fertilization treatments NT 1 , NT 2 , which amounted to 39.72, 29.81% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3346–3618 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Traditional nitrogen NT 2 gave a recovery efficiency of 29.81 in potato.

Treatment
NT 2e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
29.81e1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatment of adding nano-nitrogen Nn 1 , Nn 2 and Nn 3 recorded recovery efficiency of the element amounted to 82.47, 80.14 and 77.89% respectively, and was superior to the traditional fertilization treatments NT 1 , NT 2 , which amounted to 39.72, 29.81% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3346–3618 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dual treatment Nn 1 H 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 95.25 in potato.

Treatment
Nn 1 H 1e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
95.25e1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the dual interaction treatments achieved the highest recovery efficiency of the element which reached to the treatments of the nano-source Nn 1 H 1 , Nn 2 H 1 , Nn 3 H 1 (95.25, 92.08 and 88.71%) sequentially”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3626–3834 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dual treatment Nn 2 H 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 92.08 in potato.

Treatment
Nn 2 H 1e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
92.08e1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the dual interaction treatments achieved the highest recovery efficiency of the element which reached to the treatments of the nano-source Nn 1 H 1 , Nn 2 H 1 , Nn 3 H 1 (95.25, 92.08 and 88.71%) sequentially”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3626–3834 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dual treatment Nn 3 H 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 88.71 in potato.

Treatment
Nn 3 H 1e1
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
88.71e1

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the dual interaction treatments achieved the highest recovery efficiency of the element which reached to the treatments of the nano-source Nn 1 H 1 , Nn 2 H 1 , Nn 3 H 1 (95.25, 92.08 and 88.71%) sequentially”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3626–3834 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Traditional dual treatment NT 1 H 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 45.35 in potato.

Treatment
NT 1 H 1e2
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
45.35e2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the dual interaction treatments achieved the highest recovery efficiency of the element which reached to the treatments of the nano-source Nn 1 H 1 , Nn 2 H 1 , Nn 3 H 1 (95.25, 92.08 and 88.71%) sequentially”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3626–3834 · show in text ↑
e2

“Compared with the levels of the traditional source NT 1 H 1 , NT 2 H 1 (45.35 and 31.95%), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3836–3939 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Traditional dual treatment NT 2 H 1 gave a recovery efficiency of 31.95 in potato.

Treatment
NT 2 H 1e2
Outcome
recovery efficiencye1
Value
31.95e2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“the Potato Yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“the dual interaction treatments achieved the highest recovery efficiency of the element which reached to the treatments of the nano-source Nn 1 H 1 , Nn 2 H 1 , Nn 3 H 1 (95.25, 92.08 and 88.71%) sequentially”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3626–3834 · show in text ↑
e2

“Compared with the levels of the traditional source NT 1 H 1 , NT 2 H 1 (45.35 and 31.95%), respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3836–3939 · show in text ↑

other · nutrient: content · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 12 positive, 1 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

nitrogen · nutrient: content · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

33 papers: 24 positive, 9 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

29 papers more in this group

See all 33 papers →

other · nutrient: efficiency · Solanum tuberosum (potato)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 →

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.