Paper · 2022 · International Journal of Environment and Climate Change

Effect of Nano Zeolite, Nano Micronutrients and Biocapsules on Plant Growth, Head Yield and Quality of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var Italica)

Teegala Sharon Priyanka; Anita Kerketta; Samir E. Topno; et al.

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
4
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The present investigation was conducted at the Vegetable Research Farm, Department of Horticulture, Naini Agricultural Institute, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences (SHUATS), Prayagraj (U.P.), during the Rabi season of the year 2020–21. The experiment was laid out in a randomised block design with three replications and 15 treatments. T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching)+ Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles & T13 N P K (RDF) + Biocapsule 500 ppm (soil drenching) + foliar application of ZnO and FeOnano particles was found to be the best in Plant height, leaf area, and no of leaves. Again In terms of yield parameters, the treatment T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles performed best in Head diameter (cm), Marketable Head Yield/plot (kg), Marketable Head Yield/hectare (q/ha), Harvest Index (%) (18.68 cm, 3.15 kg, 212.86 qh, 90.65%).

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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T15 and T13 were best for plant height, leaf area, and leaf number.

Treatment
T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching)+ Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles & T13 N P K (RDF) + Biocapsule 500 ppm (soil drenching) + foliar application of ZnO and FeOnano particlese0
Outcome
Plant height, leaf area, and no of leavese0
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching)+ Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles & T13 N P K (RDF) + Biocapsule 500 ppm (soil drenching) + foliar application of ZnO and FeOnano particles was found to be the best in Plant height, leaf area, and no of leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 368–666 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T15 had the best head diameter at 18.68 cm.

Treatment
T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particlese0
Outcome
Head diametere0
Direction
beste0
Value
18.68 cme0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“the treatment T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles performed best in Head diameter (cm), Marketable Head Yield/plot (kg), Marketable Head Yield/hectare (q/ha), Harvest Index (%) (18.68 cm, 3.15 kg, 212.86 qh, 90.65%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–1007 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T15 had the best marketable head yield per plot at 3.15 kg.

Treatment
T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particlese0
Outcome
Marketable Head Yield/plote0
Direction
beste0
Value
3.15 kge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“the treatment T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles performed best in Head diameter (cm), Marketable Head Yield/plot (kg), Marketable Head Yield/hectare (q/ha), Harvest Index (%) (18.68 cm, 3.15 kg, 212.86 qh, 90.65%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–1007 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T15 had the best marketable head yield per hectare at 212.86 qh.

Treatment
T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particlese0
Outcome
Marketable Head Yield/hectaree0
Direction
beste0
Value
212.86 qhe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“the treatment T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles performed best in Head diameter (cm), Marketable Head Yield/plot (kg), Marketable Head Yield/hectare (q/ha), Harvest Index (%) (18.68 cm, 3.15 kg, 212.86 qh, 90.65%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–1007 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T15 had the best harvest index at 90.65%.

Treatment
T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particlese0
Outcome
Harvest Indexe0
Direction
beste0
Value
90.65%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var Italica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 103–143 · show in text ↑
e0

“the treatment T15 N P K (RDF) + Nanozeolite 50 ppm (Soil drenching) + Biocapsule 500 ppm+ folia application of ZnO and FeO nano particles performed best in Head diameter (cm), Marketable Head Yield/plot (kg), Marketable Head Yield/hectare (q/ha), Harvest Index (%) (18.68 cm, 3.15 kg, 212.86 qh, 90.65%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–1007 · show in text ↑

zinc oxide · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

nanoparticle · quality: postharvest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

nanoparticle · yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

application · quality: postharvest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 20 positive, 3 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

fertilization · quality: postharvest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

55 papers: 50 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

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

51 papers more in this group

See all 55 papers →

application · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

79 papers: 74 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

75 papers more in this group

See all 79 papers →

application · yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

110 papers: 104 positive, 6 negative or no effect

103 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

106 papers more in this group

See all 110 papers →

fertilization · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

264 papers: 240 positive, 24 negative or no effect

239 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

260 papers more in this group

See all 264 papers →

8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.