Abstract
Abstract There are many publications over the past 20 years comparing nano-nutrients with their traditional forms. Differently, this study examined the effect of applying nano-Fe and nano-Zn—in two different ways (foliar and soil application)—on sugarcane development, yield, and mineral status using a greenhouse experiment at the National Research Centre. The study results of first yield (plant cane crop) showed that nano-Fe caused an increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW) of leaves, FW of stalk, and total FW by 5.3%, 20.3%, 38.0%, 27.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, compared to nano-Zn. Despite the majority of growth metrics showed to be improved by using either of the two nano-sources, both nano-Fe and nano-Zn have been demonstrated to negatively impact nutrient ratios. The foliar application method was found to be superior, and the second application of nano-Zn to soil effectively halted the growth of all treated replicates. The data of the first ratoon (second yield) showed that FW of leaves, FW of stalk, total FW, and dried weight (DW) of stalk followed one trend line (nano-Fe–soil > control-foliar (sprayed distilled water) > nano-Zn-foliar > nano-Fe-foliar > control-soil (distilled water added to soil)). In conclusion it can be noticed that using nanoparticles as a fertilizer could be a weapon with double-edges, since this may induce unexpected harmful effects. It is recommended to conduct additional research to comprehend the mechanisms underlying why a nano-source that benefits plants may harm them after the second addition.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Fe raised plant height by 5.3% versus nano-Zn.
Verbatim
e0“nano-Fe caused an increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW) of leaves, FW of stalk, and total FW by 5.3%, 20.3%, 38.0%, 27.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, compared to nano-Zn.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Fe raised leaf number by 20.3% versus nano-Zn.
Verbatim
e0“nano-Fe caused an increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW) of leaves, FW of stalk, and total FW by 5.3%, 20.3%, 38.0%, 27.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, compared to nano-Zn.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Fe raised leaf fresh weight by 38.0% versus nano-Zn.
Verbatim
e0“nano-Fe caused an increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW) of leaves, FW of stalk, and total FW by 5.3%, 20.3%, 38.0%, 27.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, compared to nano-Zn.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Fe raised stalk fresh weight by 27.4% versus nano-Zn.
Verbatim
e0“nano-Fe caused an increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW) of leaves, FW of stalk, and total FW by 5.3%, 20.3%, 38.0%, 27.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, compared to nano-Zn.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Fe raised total fresh weight by 33.3% versus nano-Zn.
Verbatim
e0“nano-Fe caused an increase in plant height, number of leaves, fresh weight (FW) of leaves, FW of stalk, and total FW by 5.3%, 20.3%, 38.0%, 27.4%, and 33.3%, respectively, compared to nano-Zn.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Fe negatively affected nutrient ratios.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“both nano-Fe and nano-Zn have been demonstrated to negatively impact nutrient ratios.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano-Zn negatively affected nutrient ratios.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“both nano-Fe and nano-Zn have been demonstrated to negatively impact nutrient ratios.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar application was superior.
Verbatim
e0“The foliar application method was found to be superior”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
A second soil nano-Zn application halted growth.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanet0
- Treatment
- second application of nano-Zn to soile0
- Outcome
- growth of all treated replicatese0
- Direction
- haltede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the second application of nano-Zn to soil effectively halted the growth of all treated replicates.”
t0“Sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
First ratoon fresh and dry weights followed the reported treatment ranking.
Verbatim
e0“FW of leaves, FW of stalk, total FW, and dried weight (DW) of stalk followed one trend line (nano-Fe–soil > control-foliar (sprayed distilled water) > nano-Zn-foliar > nano-Fe-foliar > control-soil (distilled water added to soil)).”
t0“Sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
nanoparticle · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.