Paper · 2021 · Journal of Environmental Quality

Opportunities to improve nitrogen use efficiency in an intensive vegetable system without compromising yield

Helen Suter; Arjun Pandey; Shu Kee Lam; et al.

11
claims
11
verbatim quotes
14
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Intensive vegetable cropping systems rely heavily on nitrogen (N) inputs from multiple synthetic and organic fertilizer applications. The majority of applied N is lost to the environment through numerous pathways, including as nitrous oxide (N 2 O). A field trial was conducted to examine the opportunities to reduce N input in an intensive vegetable system without compromising yield. Treatments applied were control (no N), manure (M, 408 kg N ha –1 from chicken manure), grower practice (GP, 408 kg N ha –1 from chicken manure + 195 kg N ha –1 from fertilizer), and 2/3 GP (two‐thirds of the total N input in GP), all with and without 3,4‐dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP). Nitrogen recovery in the GP treatment was determined using 15 N‐labeled fertilizer. Using only manure significantly lowered celery ( Apium graveolens L.) yield and apparent N use efficiency (ANUE) compared with GP. Reducing N input by one‐third did not affect yield or ANUE. Use of DMPP increased ANUE despite no yield improvement. More than 50% of the applied N in the GP treatment was lost to the environment, with almost 10 kg N ha –1 emitted as N 2 O over the season, which was 67 times more than from the control. Reducing the N input by one‐third or using manure only reduced N 2 O emissions by more than 70% relative to GP. This study shows that there is a clear opportunity to reduce N input and N 2 O emissions in high‐fertilizer‐input vegetable systems without compromising vegetable yield.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Manure alone significantly lowered celery yield versus grower practice.

Treatment
manuree0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowerede0
Comparator
GPe0

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

Apium graveolens Dulce Group
Apium graveolens Dulce Group · Taxon · picture of the speciesMPF · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Using only manure significantly lowered celery ( Apium graveolens L.) yield and apparent N use efficiency (ANUE) compared with GP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–899 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Manure alone significantly lowered apparent nitrogen use efficiency versus grower practice.

Treatment
manuree0
Outcome
apparent N use efficiency (ANUE)e0
Direction
lowerede0
Comparator
GPe0

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

Apium graveolens Dulce Group
Apium graveolens Dulce Group · Taxon · picture of the speciesMPF · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Using only manure significantly lowered celery ( Apium graveolens L.) yield and apparent N use efficiency (ANUE) compared with GP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 770–899 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing nitrogen input by one-third did not affect yield.

Treatment
Reducing N input by one‐thirde0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Reducing N input by one‐third did not affect yield or ANUE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 901–959 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing nitrogen input by one-third did not affect ANUE.

Treatment
Reducing N input by one‐thirde0
Outcome
ANUEe0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Reducing N input by one‐third did not affect yield or ANUE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 901–959 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DMPP increased apparent nitrogen use efficiency.

Treatment
DMPPe0
Outcome
ANUEe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Use of DMPP increased ANUE despite no yield improvement”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 961–1016 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DMPP did not improve yield.

Treatment
DMPPe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
no yield improvemente0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Use of DMPP increased ANUE despite no yield improvement”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 961–1016 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More than 50% of applied N was lost in grower practice.

Treatment
GP treatmente0
Outcome
applied Ne0
Direction
loste0
Value
More than 50%e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“More than 50% of the applied N in the GP treatment was lost to the environment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1018–1096 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GP emitted almost 10 kg N ha –1 as N 2 O over the season, 67 times the control.

Outcome
N 2 Oe0
Direction
moree0
Value
almost 10 kg N ha –1e0
Qualifier
67 timese0
Comparator
controle0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“almost 10 kg N ha –1 emitted as N 2 O over the season, which was 67 times more than from the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1203 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing N input by one-third cut N 2 O emissions by more than 70% relative to GP.

Treatment
Reducing the N input by one‐thirde0
Outcome
N 2 O emissionse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
more than 70%e0
Comparator
GPe0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Reducing the N input by one‐third or using manure only reduced N 2 O emissions by more than 70% relative to GP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1315 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Using manure only cut N 2 O emissions by more than 70% relative to GP.

Treatment
using manure onlye0
Outcome
N 2 O emissionse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
more than 70%e0
Comparator
GPe0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Reducing the N input by one‐third or using manure only reduced N 2 O emissions by more than 70% relative to GP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1205–1315 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that high-input vegetable systems can reduce N inputs and N 2 O emissions without losing yield.

Outcome
reduce N input and N 2 O emissions in high‐fertilizer‐input vegetable systems without compromising vegetable yielde0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“there is a clear opportunity to reduce N input and N 2 O emissions in high‐fertilizer‐input vegetable systems without compromising vegetable yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1339–1485 · show in text ↑

fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Apium graveolensPositive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

fertilization · yield · Apium graveolensPositive and negative results

36 papers: 31 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 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.