Paper · 1991 · Agricultural and Food Science

Nitrogen fertilization of winter wheat in spring in Finland: comparison of calcium ammonium nitrate and calcium nitrate, and the effect of split application

Oili Mohammadi; Leena Ristimäki; Stephan Vermeulen; et al.

6
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The effectiveness of calcium nitrate (CN) and calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) as N sources for winter wheat in spring was studied in seven field trials in Southern Finland, in the province of Uusimaa. The experiments were carried out on clay soils in 1986—1989. Nitrogen dressings of 120—150 kg ha-1 were broadcasted either as a single application or split into two applications. The two applications were in most cases 30—40 and 90 —110 kg ha-1. The single or the first split application was given in the beginning of the growing season and the latter application at the end of tillering. The grain yields obtained by a single N application of 140—150 kg ha-1 ranged from 2 610 to 7 550 kg ha-1 and the protein content of grains from 9.4 to 14.5 %. The nitrogen form of the fertilizer had no significant effect on the grain yield and on the protein content of grains. Splitting the nitrogen increased the grain yield by 400 kg ha-1 and the protein content of grains by 0.8 percentage points.

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 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Single nitrogen applications of 140—150 kg ha-1 produced winter wheat grain yields from 2 610 to 7 550 kg ha-1.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
single N application of 140—150 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
grain yieldse0
Value
2 610 to 7 550 kg ha-1e0

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

“The grain yields obtained by a single N application of 140—150 kg ha-1 ranged from 2 610 to 7 550 kg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 589–694 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–38 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Single nitrogen applications gave winter wheat grain protein contents from 9.4 to 14.5 %.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
single N application of 140—150 kg ha-1e1
Outcome
protein content of grainse0
Value
9.4 to 14.5 %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

e0

“the protein content of grains from 9.4 to 14.5 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–747 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–38 · show in text ↑
e1

“single N application of 140—150 kg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 620–659 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer nitrogen form had no significant effect on winter wheat grain yield.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
calcium ammonium nitrate and calcium nitratet1
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
no significant effecte0

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

“The nitrogen form of the fertilizer had no significant effect on the grain yield and on the protein content of grains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–866 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–38 · show in text ↑
t1

“calcium ammonium nitrate and calcium nitrate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer nitrogen form had no significant effect on winter wheat grain protein content.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
calcium ammonium nitrate and calcium nitratet1
Outcome
protein content of grainse0
Direction
no significant effecte0

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

“The nitrogen form of the fertilizer had no significant effect on the grain yield and on the protein content of grains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–866 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–38 · show in text ↑
t1

“calcium ammonium nitrate and calcium nitrate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–119 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Splitting nitrogen application increased winter wheat grain yield by 400 kg ha-1.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Splitting the nitrogene0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
400 kg ha-1e0

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

“Splitting the nitrogen increased the grain yield by 400 kg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 868–931 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–38 · show in text ↑
t1

“split application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 139–156 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Splitting nitrogen application increased winter wheat grain protein content by 0.8 percentage points.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Splitting the nitrogene0
Outcome
protein content of grainse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
0.8 percentage pointse0

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

“Splitting the nitrogen increased the grain yield by 400 kg ha-1 and the protein content of grains by 0.8 percentage points”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 868–990 · show in text ↑
t0

“winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–38 · show in text ↑

calcium nitrate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

calcium ammonium nitrate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 12 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

nitrogen · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

454 papers: 400 positive, 54 negative or no effect

399 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

450 papers more in this group

See all 454 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. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

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.