Paper · 2025 · Universitätsbibliothek Kassel

Managing reactive nitrogen in spring wheat cropping systems: insights from Kabul, Afghanistan

Safi, Zikrullah; Rees, Robert; Drewer, Julia; et al.

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Ammonia (NH₃) volatilization and nitrate leaching are significant pathways of reactive nitrogen (Nr) losses in agriculture, leading to environmental concerns. This study investigates nitrogen (N) losses in wheat production near Kabul, Afghanistan, aiming to improve nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) for food security and environmental protection. Three fertilizer treatments were tested: (A) animal manure (2 t h−1) + 50% chemical fertilizer (urea and diammonium phosphate, DAP), (B) night soil (2 t ha−1) + 50% chemical fertilizer, and (C) full dose of chemical fertilizer, with sub-treatments varying in N application (25% less, 25% excess, and farmers’ practice). A no-fertilizer control treatment was included. Ammonia emissions and nitrate-N (NO₃-N) and ammonium (NH₄-N) leaching were monitored, and NUE was calculated. Subsurface application (treatment A₂) reduced ammonia emissions by 41.82% compared to 55% in surface applications (treatment A₃) and 15% in control plots. Ammonium-N losses were lower in subsurface application (31%) than surface applications (53%). NUE was highest in surface application (103%) and lowest in subsurface (84%). Moreover, Partial Factor Productivity (PFP) was higher in treatments with 25% less N compared to those with 25% excess and conventional practice. The novelty of this study lies in the implementation of subsurface application techniques to reduce N losses and enhance NUE in this region, where such techniques are rarely used. These results offer a model for improving NUE by optimizing fertilizer and manure inputs, applicable to similar agricultural systems globally.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsurface application reduced ammonia emissions relative to surface application and control plots.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Subsurface applicatione0
Outcome
ammonia emissionse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
41.82%e0
Comparator
surface applicationse0
Setting
control plotse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“Subsurface application (treatment A₂) reduced ammonia emissions by 41.82% compared to 55% in surface applications (treatment A₃) and 15% in control plots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 822–976 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium-N losses were lower under subsurface than surface application.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
subsurface applicatione0
Outcome
Ammonium-N lossese0
Direction
lowere0
Value
31%e0
Qualifier
53%e0
Comparator
surface applicationse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“Ammonium-N losses were lower in subsurface application (31%) than surface applications (53%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 977–1070 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen use efficiency was highest with surface application, at 103%.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
surface applicatione0
Outcome
NUEe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
103%e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“NUE was highest in surface application (103%) and lowest in subsurface (84%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1071–1148 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen use efficiency was lowest with subsurface application, at 84%.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
subsurfacee0
Outcome
NUEe0
Direction
loweste0
Value
84%e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“NUE was highest in surface application (103%) and lowest in subsurface (84%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1071–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partial factor productivity was higher with 25% less nitrogen than with 25% excess and conventional practice.

Taxon
spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
25% less Ne0
Outcome
Partial Factor Productivity (PFP)e0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
25% excess and conventional practicee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“spring wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e0

“Partial Factor Productivity (PFP) was higher in treatments with 25% less N compared to those with 25% excess and conventional practice.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1294 · show in text ↑