Abstract
Growing crops on marginal lands is a promising solution to alleviate the increasing pressure on agricultural land in Europe. Such crops will however be at the same time exposed to increased drought and pathogen prevalence, on already challenging soil conditions. Some sustainable practices, such as Silicon (Si) foliar fertilization, have been proposed to alleviate these two stress factors, but have not been tested under controlled, future climate conditions. We hypothesized that Si foliar fertilization would be beneficial for crops under future climate, and would have cascading beneficial effects on ecosystem processes, as many of them are directly dependent on plant health. We tested this hypothesis by exposing spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms (three with, three without Si treatment) to 2070 climate projections in an ecotron facility. Using the high-capacity monitoring of the ecotron, we estimated C, water, and N budgets of every macrocosm. Additionally, we measured crop yield, the biomass of each plant organ, and characterized bacterial communities using metabarcoding. Despite being exposed to water stress conditions, plants did not produce more biomass with the foliar Si fertilization, whatever the organ considered. Evapotranspiration (ET) was unaffected, as well as water quality and bacterial communities. However, in the 10-day period following two of the three Si applications, we measured a significant increase in C sequestration, when climate conditions where significantly drier, while ET remained the same. We interpreted these results as a less significant effect of Si treatment than expected as compared with literature, which could be explained by the high CO 2 levels under future climate, that reduces need for stomata opening, and therefore sensitivity to drought. We conclude that making marginal soils climate proof using foliar Si treatments may not be a sufficient strategy, at least in this type of nutrient-poor, dry, sandy soil.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar Si did not increase spring barley biomass across organs.
- Taxon
- spring barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree1 - Treatment
- foliar Si fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- did not produce moree0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“plants did not produce more biomass with the foliar Si fertilization, whatever the organ considered”
e1“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar Si left evapotranspiration unaffected.
- Taxon
- spring barleyHordeum vulgaree2
- Treatment
- Si foliar fertilizatione1
- Outcome
- Evapotranspiration (ET)e0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evapotranspiration (ET) was unaffected”
e1“Si foliar fertilization”
e2“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar Si left water quality unaffected.
- Taxon
- spring barleyHordeum vulgaree2
- Treatment
- Si foliar fertilizatione1
- Outcome
- water qualitye0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evapotranspiration (ET) was unaffected, as well as water quality”
e1“Si foliar fertilization”
e2“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar Si left bacterial communities unaffected.
- Taxon
- spring barleyHordeum vulgaree2
- Treatment
- Si foliar fertilizatione1
- Outcome
- bacterial communitiese0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evapotranspiration (ET) was unaffected, as well as water quality and bacterial communities”
e1“Si foliar fertilization”
e2“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
Claim · model-written summary
After two of three Si applications, carbon sequestration rose significantly for 10 days under drier climate.
- Taxon
- spring barleyHordeum vulgaree1
- Treatment
- Si applicationse0
- Outcome
- C sequestratione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- 10-day period following two of the three Si applicationse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the 10-day period following two of the three Si applications, we measured a significant increase in C sequestration, when climate conditions where significantly drier”
e1“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
Claim · model-written summary
Evapotranspiration remained the same during the carbon sequestration response.
- Taxon
- spring barleyHordeum vulgaree2
- Treatment
- Si applicationse1
- Outcome
- ETe0
- Direction
- remained the samee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while ET remained the same”
e1“two of the three Si applications”
e2“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors conclude foliar Si may be insufficient to climate-proof marginal soil of this type.
- Taxon
- spring barleyHordeum vulgaree1
- Outcome
- foliar Si treatments may not be a sufficient strategye0
- Qualifier
- nutrient-poor, dry, sandy soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“making marginal soils climate proof using foliar Si treatments may not be a sufficient strategy, at least in this type of nutrient-poor, dry, sandy soil”
e1“spring barley growing on marginal soil macrocosms”
The same questions in other papers
silicon atom · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →silicon atom · physiology: water · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
application · soil: biology · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · quality: general · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →application · physiology: water · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →fertilization · soil: biology · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →fertilization · quality: general · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →8 of 10 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.