Paper · 2024 · African Journal of Biological Sciences

Effect of Nano and non-Nano NPK Fertilizers on growth, Yield and Quality of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica) Grown under Covered and Un Covered Conditions.

SANAA M.S RASHEED

20
claims
40
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This study included the effects of two planting methods (plastic house and open field) or (covered and uncovered) conditions, three levels of nano NPK fertilizer (approximately 0, 3, 6 g.l-1) and three levels of non-nano NPK fertilizer(0, 3, 6 g.l-1) were included in this trial (2x3x3=18) with three replicate experimental units (54). Nano and non-nano NPK fertilizers sprayed plants after a week from transplanting and other spraying are donetwo times with an interval of 15 days between each spray. The results showed that the covered method was superior in terms of characteristics such as plant height to(64.54cm), leaf area (647.91cm ), head weight (682.22 g), total yield (40.02 t.ha-1 compared with uncovered method . whereas, theuncovered method showed better results for number of leaves to (22.22leaf plant- 1) and vitamin C (36.15) . In particular, nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1, head diameter (32.94 cm) vitamin C (35.83) phenol content (0.83 %) fiber content (2.51%) nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (1.994-0.861- and 1.317%) compared with control. However, significant impact of non-Nano NPK on the parameters and only the traits higher plant (62.90 cm), head diameter (35.89 cm) vitamin C (35.89) fiber content (2.13%)andnitrogen content (1.972%) compared to the control.

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 20

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Covered cultivation increased broccoli plant height to 64.54 cm versus uncovered cultivation.

Treatment
covered methode0
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
superiore0
Value
64.54cme0
Comparator
uncovered methode0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“covered method was superior in terms of characteristics such as plant height to(64.54cm), leaf area (647.91cm ), head weight (682.22 g), total yield (40.02 t.ha-1 compared with uncovered method”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Covered cultivation increased broccoli leaf area to 647.91 cm versus uncovered cultivation.

Treatment
covered methode0
Outcome
leaf areae0
Direction
superiore0
Value
647.91cme0
Comparator
uncovered methode0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“covered method was superior in terms of characteristics such as plant height to(64.54cm), leaf area (647.91cm ), head weight (682.22 g), total yield (40.02 t.ha-1 compared with uncovered method”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Covered cultivation increased broccoli head weight to 682.22 g versus uncovered cultivation.

Treatment
covered methode0
Outcome
head weighte0
Direction
superiore0
Value
682.22 ge0
Comparator
uncovered methode0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“covered method was superior in terms of characteristics such as plant height to(64.54cm), leaf area (647.91cm ), head weight (682.22 g), total yield (40.02 t.ha-1 compared with uncovered method”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Covered cultivation increased broccoli total yield to 40.02 t.ha-1 versus uncovered cultivation.

Treatment
covered methode0
Outcome
total yielde0
Direction
superiore0
Value
40.02 t.ha-1e0
Comparator
uncovered methode0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“covered method was superior in terms of characteristics such as plant height to(64.54cm), leaf area (647.91cm ), head weight (682.22 g), total yield (40.02 t.ha-1 compared with uncovered method”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 530–723 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Uncovered cultivation gave a higher leaf count of 22.22 per plant.

Treatment
theuncovered methode0
Outcome
number of leavese0
Direction
bettere0
Value
22.22leaf plant- 1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“theuncovered method showed better results for number of leaves to (22.22leaf plant- 1) and vitamin C (36.15)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 735–843 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Uncovered cultivation gave higher vitamin C of 36.15.

Treatment
theuncovered methode0
Outcome
vitamin Ce0
Direction
bettere0
Value
36.15e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“theuncovered method showed better results for number of leaves to (22.22leaf plant- 1) and vitamin C (36.15)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 735–843 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK at 6 g.l-1 significantly increased leaf count to 20.61 per plant.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
number of leavese0
Direction
increasede0
Value
20.61leaf plant-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–989 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK at 6 g.l-1 increased leaf area to 612.66 cm.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
leaf areae0
Direction
increasede0
Value
612.66 cme0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1012 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK at 6 g.l-1 increased head weight to 698.89 g.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
head weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
698.89 ge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1036 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK at 6 g.l-1 increased total yield to 41.00 t.ha-1.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
total yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
41.00 t.ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1063 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK at 6 g.l-1 increased head diameter to 32.94 cm.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
head diametere0
Direction
increasede0
Value
32.94 cme0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1, head diameter (32.94 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1089 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK increased vitamin C to 35.83.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
vitamin Ce0
Direction
increasede0
Value
35.83e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1, head diameter (32.94 cm) vitamin C (35.83)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK increased phenol content to 0.83%.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
phenol contente0
Direction
increasede0
Value
0.83 %e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1, head diameter (32.94 cm) vitamin C (35.83) phenol content (0.83 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1131 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK increased fiber content to 2.51%.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
fiber contente0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2.51%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1, head diameter (32.94 cm) vitamin C (35.83) phenol content (0.83 %) fiber content (2.51%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1153 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano NPK increased nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content.

Treatment
nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1e0
Outcome
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassiume0
Direction
increasede0
Value
1.994-0.861- and 1.317%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“nano-fertilizer at a concentration of 6 g.l-1 significantly increased most of parameters number of leaves to (20.61leaf plant-1), leaf area (612.66 cm), head weight (698.89 g), total yield (41.00 t.ha-1, head diameter (32.94 cm) vitamin C (35.83) phenol content (0.83 %) fiber content (2.51%) nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (1.994-0.861- and 1.317%) compared with control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1236 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional NPK increased plant height to 62.90 cm versus control.

Treatment
non-Nano NPKe0
Outcome
higher plante0
Direction
highere0
Value
62.90 cme0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“significant impact of non-Nano NPK on the parameters and only the traits higher plant (62.90 cm), head diameter (35.89 cm) vitamin C (35.89) fiber content (2.13%)andnitrogen content (1.972%) compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1461 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional NPK increased head diameter to 35.89 cm versus control.

Treatment
non-Nano NPKe0
Outcome
head diametere0
Direction
highere0
Value
35.89 cme0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“significant impact of non-Nano NPK on the parameters and only the traits higher plant (62.90 cm), head diameter (35.89 cm) vitamin C (35.89) fiber content (2.13%)andnitrogen content (1.972%) compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1461 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional NPK increased vitamin C to 35.89 versus control.

Treatment
non-Nano NPKe0
Outcome
vitamin Ce0
Direction
highere0
Value
35.89e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“significant impact of non-Nano NPK on the parameters and only the traits higher plant (62.90 cm), head diameter (35.89 cm) vitamin C (35.89) fiber content (2.13%)andnitrogen content (1.972%) compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1461 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional NPK increased fiber content to 2.13% versus control.

Treatment
non-Nano NPKe0
Outcome
fiber contente0
Direction
highere0
Value
2.13%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“significant impact of non-Nano NPK on the parameters and only the traits higher plant (62.90 cm), head diameter (35.89 cm) vitamin C (35.89) fiber content (2.13%)andnitrogen content (1.972%) compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1461 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional NPK increased nitrogen content to 1.972% versus control.

Treatment
non-Nano NPKe0
Outcome
nitrogen contente0
Direction
highere0
Value
1.972%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–117 · show in text ↑
e0

“significant impact of non-Nano NPK on the parameters and only the traits higher plant (62.90 cm), head diameter (35.89 cm) vitamin C (35.89) fiber content (2.13%)andnitrogen content (1.972%) compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1461 · show in text ↑

fertilization · quality: phytochemicals · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results differ

66 papers: 57 positive, 9 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

62 papers more in this group

See all 66 papers →

fertilization · quality: grain · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 9 positive, 4 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

146 papers: 127 positive, 19 negative or no effect

126 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

142 papers more in this group

See all 146 papers →

fertilization · yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

496 papers: 445 positive, 51 negative or no effect

444 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

492 papers more in this group

See all 496 papers →

nanoparticle · quality: phytochemicals · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

nanoparticle · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

17 papers: 17 positive, 0 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 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.