Paper · 2002 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

NITROGEN FERTILIZATION OF CONSERVATION-TILLED WHEAT. I. SOURCES AND APPLICATION RATES

D. D. Howard; M. A. Newman; M. E. Essington; et al.

10
claims
19
verbatim quotes
18
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Selection of the nitrogen (N) source and rate for application is critical to ensure profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields. The research objective was to evaluate several N sources and spring application rates for conservation tillage wheat production. Research was initiated in the fall of 1997 and continued through 2000 on Collins silt loam (Aquic Udifluvents). A different cultivar was seeded each of the three years. The experimental design was a split-plot with 0, 34, 67, 101, 134, and 168 kg N ha−1 rates the main plots and N sources (ammonium nitrate, urea, urea-ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate and UAN+Ca(NO3)2 co-mixture) the sub-plots. The yield response to N rate varied with year and N source. For the three years, yields were increased by applying either 67 or 101 kg N ha−1. Broadcasting AN produced higher yields than urea-containing N sources (urea or UAN) for two of the three years. Broadcasting urea or UAN restricted yields approximately 12% apparently due to N volatilization losses. Broadcasting AS was as effective as AN one of the two years while broadcasting the UAN+ Ca(NO3)2 co-mixture resulted in higher yields at a lower N rate than AN for one of two years. Yield differences due to N source were small when rainfall occurred within two days of soil application. Take-all root rot affected yield one of three years with AN and AS being more efficient N sources. Sulphur fertilization was not needed for wheat production on this soil.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying 67 or 101 kg N ha−1 increased wheat yields.

Treatment
applying either 67 or 101 kg N ha−1e1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“For the three years, yields were increased by applying either 67 or 101 kg N ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 728–809 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Broadcast AN gave higher wheat yields than urea-containing N sources in two of three years.

Treatment
Broadcasting ANe1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
highere1
Qualifier
for two of the three yearse1
Comparator
urea-containing N sourcese1

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Broadcasting AN produced higher yields than urea-containing N sources (urea or UAN) for two of the three years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 811–921 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Broadcast urea or UAN restricted wheat yields by approximately 12%, apparently due to N volatilization losses.

Treatment
Broadcasting urea or UANe1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
restrictede1
Value
12%e1
Qualifier
apparently due to N volatilization lossese1

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Broadcasting urea or UAN restricted yields approximately 12% apparently due to N volatilization losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–1025 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The UAN+ Ca(NO3)2 co-mixture gave higher wheat yields than AN at a lower N rate in one of two years.

Treatment
UAN+ Ca(NO3)2 co-mixturee1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
highere1
Qualifier
at a lower N ratee1
Comparator
ANe1

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Broadcasting AS was as effective as AN one of the two years while broadcasting the UAN+ Ca(NO3)2 co-mixture resulted in higher yields at a lower N rate than AN for one of two years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1207 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Broadcast AS was as effective as AN for wheat yields in one of two years.

Treatment
Broadcasting ASe1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
no_changeinferrede1
Qualifier
one of the two yearse1
Comparator
ANe1

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Broadcasting AS was as effective as AN one of the two years while broadcasting the UAN+ Ca(NO3)2 co-mixture resulted in higher yields at a lower N rate than AN for one of two years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1207 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield differences due to N source were small when rainfall occurred within two days of soil application.

Treatment
N sourcee1
Outcome
Yield differences due to N sourcee1
Direction
decreaseinferrede1
Qualifier
when rainfall occurred within two days of soil applicatione1

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Yield differences due to N source were small when rainfall occurred within two days of soil application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1209–1312 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Take-all root rot affected wheat yield in one of three years.

Interactor
Take-alle1pathogen
Outcome
yielde1
Qualifier
one of three yearse1

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Take-all root rot affected yield one of three years with AN and AS being more efficient N sources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1314–1411 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AN and AS were more efficient N sources in the take-all year.

Treatment
AN and ASe1
Outcome
efficient N sourcese1
Direction
moree1

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“Take-all root rot affected yield one of three years with AN and AS being more efficient N sources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1314–1411 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The yield response to N rate varied with year and N source.

Treatment
N ratee1
Outcome
yield response to N ratee1
Qualifier
with year and N sourcee1

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“profitable wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“The yield response to N rate varied with year and N source”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 668–726 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur fertilization is not needed for wheat production on this soil.

Treatment
Sulphur fertilizatione1
Outcome
Sulphur fertilization was not needede1

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

e1

“Sulphur fertilization was not needed for wheat production on this soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1413–1483 · show in text ↑

calcium atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

25 papers: 18 positive, 7 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

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

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

transplanting · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

176 papers: 129 positive, 47 negative or no effect

128 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction · 12 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

172 papers more in this group

See all 176 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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.