Paper · 2025 · Frontiers in Plant Science

Canola grain yield and quality response to Sunn hemp cover crop, combined nano zinc and copper, and nitrogen fertiliser application under different agroecological zones

Mahlare Mapula Mokgophi; Kingsley Kwabena Ayisi; Pholosho Mmateko Kgopa; et al.

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Introduction: Canola production requires considerable nitrogen fertilisation, which negatively impacts the environment. This study evaluated the effects of Sunn hemp cover crop, nano zinc and copper, and nitrogen fertiliser on grain, oil and protein yields at Syferkuil and Ofcolaco during 2023 and 2024. Methods: Cover crop was planted, slashed, and incorporated into the soil 60 days after planting, then followed by canola in a split split-plot design with 16 treatments and 3 replications. Statistical analysis was conducted using JASP software 0.19.3. Results: Results showed increases in grain yield (17% to 43%), oil yield (21% to 68%), and protein yield (21% to 47%) with cover crop incorporation, although location-specific variances were noted. At Syferkuil, nano zinc and copper enhanced grain yield by 15% to 17% and protein yield by 16% to 27%. Nitrogen fertilisation at 120 kgN ha-1 also resulted in higher oil yields, which was comparable to 180 kgN ha-1, although this varied across seasons and locations. Discussion: Overall, cover crop, nano zinc and copper can reduce nitrogen inputs while maintaining oil yield depending on specific conditions.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crop incorporation raised canola grain yield by 17% to 43%.

Treatment
cover crop incorporatione0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
17% to 43%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increases in grain yield (17% to 43%), oil yield (21% to 68%), and protein yield (21% to 47%) with cover crop incorporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–704 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crop incorporation raised canola oil yield by 21% to 68%.

Treatment
cover crop incorporatione0
Outcome
oil yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
21% to 68%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increases in grain yield (17% to 43%), oil yield (21% to 68%), and protein yield (21% to 47%) with cover crop incorporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–704 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crop incorporation raised canola protein yield by 21% to 47%.

Treatment
cover crop incorporatione0
Outcome
protein yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
21% to 47%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increases in grain yield (17% to 43%), oil yield (21% to 68%), and protein yield (21% to 47%) with cover crop incorporation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–704 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At Syferkuil, nano zinc and copper raised canola grain yield by 15% to 17%.

Treatment
nano zinc and coppere0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
15% to 17%e0
Setting
Syferkuile0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At Syferkuil, nano zinc and copper enhanced grain yield by 15% to 17% and protein yield by 16% to 27%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 755–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At Syferkuil, nano zinc and copper raised canola protein yield by 16% to 27%.

Treatment
nano zinc and coppere0
Outcome
protein yielde0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
16% to 27%e0
Setting
Syferkuile0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At Syferkuil, nano zinc and copper enhanced grain yield by 15% to 17% and protein yield by 16% to 27%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 755–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen at 120 kgN ha-1 increased oil yield comparably to 180 kgN ha-1, with variation across seasons and locations.

Treatment
Nitrogen fertilisation at 120 kgN ha-1e0
Outcome
oil yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
varied across seasons and locationse0
Comparator
180 kgN ha-1e0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen fertilisation at 120 kgN ha-1 also resulted in higher oil yields, which was comparable to 180 kgN ha-1, although this varied across seasons and locations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–1020 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Cover crop and nano zinc and copper may reduce nitrogen inputs while maintaining canola oil yield under some conditions.

Treatment
cover crop, nano zinc and coppere0
Outcome
reduce nitrogen inputs while maintaining oil yielde0
Qualifier
depending on specific conditionse0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cover crop, nano zinc and copper can reduce nitrogen inputs while maintaining oil yield depending on specific conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1043–1163 · show in text ↑
t0

“Canola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–6 · show in text ↑

copper atom · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

zinc atom · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

39 papers: 35 positive, 4 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 papers →

zinc atom · quality: protein · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 11 positive, 2 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

copper atom · quality: protein · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

cover crop · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

7 papers: 4 positive, 3 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 19 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

fertilization · yield · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

378 papers: 337 positive, 41 negative or no effect

336 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

374 papers more in this group

See all 378 papers →

cover crop · quality: oil · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.