Paper · 1988 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Ammonium fixation from urea as influenced by nitrapyrin

J. E. Rechcigl; M. R. Teel; D. L. Sparks

5
claims
14
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract During the period 1977–1979, NaNO3, urea, and urea plus 2% (wt/wt) nitrapyrin (2‐chloro‐6‐(trimethyl)pyridine) were compared on a Matapeake silt loam (fine silty mixed mesic Typic Hapludult) . Nitrogen sources were injected as solutions into the water system at 224 kg N ha‐1yr‐1used for subsurface trickle irrigation of corn (Zea maysL.). Nitrogen was withheld in 1980 in order to assess residual N effects. Grain yields in 1980 for the NaNO3, urea, and urea plus Nitrapyrin treatments were 5.10, 4.56 and 6.52 Mg ha‐1, respectively. Corresponding ear leaf N concentrations were 17.7, 16.7 and 19.2 g kg‐1. Significantly higher grain yield and leaf N concentrations associated with the use of nitrapyrin as a nitrification inhibitor indicated greater soil N reserves for this treatment. Non‐exchangeable (fixed) NH4 +, in soil cores taken in November 1981 averaged 54, 59 and 74 ug N g‐1for the respective N regimes. The concentration of fixed NH4 +increased with sampling depth, averaging 54, 61 and 72 ug N g‐1for the 0–5, 30–35, and 60–65 cm profile depths, respectively. This trend is ascribed to increasing quantities of micaceous and vermiculitic clay (<2 um) with increasing profile depth. Key words: Nitrogen fixationNitrification inhibitors

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea plus nitrapyrin gave significantly higher corn grain yield than urea or NaNO3.

Treatment
use of nitrapyrin as a nitrification inhibitore1
Outcome
grain yielde1
Direction
highere1
Value
6.52e3
Comparator
NaNO3, ureae3

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“used for subsurface trickle irrigation of corn (Zea maysL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–347 · show in text ↑
e1

“Significantly higher grain yield and leaf N concentrations associated with the use of nitrapyrin as a nitrification inhibitor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–742 · show in text ↑
e3

“Grain yields in 1980 for the NaNO3, urea, and urea plus Nitrapyrin treatments were 5.10, 4.56 and 6.52”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 418–520 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea plus nitrapyrin gave significantly higher ear leaf N concentrations than urea or NaNO3.

Treatment
use of nitrapyrin as a nitrification inhibitore1
Outcome
leaf N concentrationse1
Direction
highere1
Value
19.2e4
Comparator
NaNO3, ureae3

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“used for subsurface trickle irrigation of corn (Zea maysL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–347 · show in text ↑
e1

“Significantly higher grain yield and leaf N concentrations associated with the use of nitrapyrin as a nitrification inhibitor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–742 · show in text ↑
e3

“Grain yields in 1980 for the NaNO3, urea, and urea plus Nitrapyrin treatments were 5.10, 4.56 and 6.52”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 418–520 · show in text ↑
e4

“Corresponding ear leaf N concentrations were 17.7, 16.7 and 19.2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 544–608 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fixed NH4 + in soil cores averaged 54, 59 and 74 µg N g-1 for the NaNO3, urea and urea plus nitrapyrin regimes.

Outcome
(fixed) NH4 +e5
Value
54, 59 and 74e5

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“used for subsurface trickle irrigation of corn (Zea maysL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–347 · show in text ↑
e5

“(fixed) NH4 +, in soil cores taken in November 1981 averaged 54, 59 and 74”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 814–888 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fixed NH4 + increased with sampling depth, averaging 54, 61 and 72 at the three depths.

Outcome
concentration of fixed NH4e6
Direction
increasede6
Value
54, 61 and 72e6
Qualifier
with sampling depthe6

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“used for subsurface trickle irrigation of corn (Zea maysL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–347 · show in text ↑
e6

“The concentration of fixed NH4 +increased with sampling depth, averaging 54, 61 and 72”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 927–1013 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors ascribe the depth trend in fixed NH4 + to increasing micaceous and vermiculitic clay with depth.

Outcome
concentration of fixed NH4e6
Qualifier
increasing quantities of micaceous and vermiculitic claye7

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“used for subsurface trickle irrigation of corn (Zea maysL.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–347 · show in text ↑
e6

“The concentration of fixed NH4 +increased with sampling depth, averaging 54, 61 and 72”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 927–1013 · show in text ↑
e7

“This trend is ascribed to increasing quantities of micaceous and vermiculitic clay”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1085–1167 · show in text ↑

nitrapyrin · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

43 papers: 34 positive, 9 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

39 papers more in this group

See all 43 papers →

nitrapyrin · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 9 positive, 5 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

nitrification inhibitor · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 10 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

nitrification inhibitor · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

40 papers: 31 positive, 9 negative or no effect

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

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

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 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.