Paper · 2024 · International Journal of Agronomy

Investigating the Effects of Various Soil Amendments on Forages Production in the Field

Hana’a Burezq

5
claims
5
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

An initial investigation into the utilization of recycled plant and animal residues as soil amendments (SAs), including compost, biochar, and soil conditioner, was conducted using alfalfa crops. This study evaluated the impact of SAs on alfalfa seed germination, resulting in an 87% germination rate for biochar, 82% for soil conditioner, and 82% for compost. In comparison, untreated seeds displayed a 78% germination rate. After successful germination, the SAs were employed to enhance soil health, with a focus on water conservation and increased forage yield. The study used sandy-textured soil with moderate alkalinity, very slight salinity, slight calcareousness, and high permeability. The germination trial confirmed that SAs usage did not hinder seed germination, even for salt-sensitive crops like alfalfa. Two field experiments were carried out in Al-Wafra, using different application rates of compost, biochar, and soil conditioner at 5, 7.5, and 10 tons per hectare. The results highlighted the positive impact of SAs application on increasing forage production, with varying degrees of enhancement, and confirmed a 40% reduction in water usage compared to treatment without SAs but under 100% irrigation (100% ETc). In conclusion, SAs show promising potential for local forages intensification and water conservation.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biochar gave alfalfa an 87% germination rate.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
biochare0
Outcome
germination ratee0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
87%e0
Qualifier
78%e0
Comparator
untreated seedse0

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“alfalfa seed germination, resulting in an 87% germination rate for biochar, 82% for soil conditioner, and 82% for compost. In comparison, untreated seeds displayed a 78% germination rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil conditioner gave alfalfa an 82% germination rate.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
soil conditionere0
Outcome
germination ratee0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
82%e0
Qualifier
78%e0
Comparator
untreated seedse0

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“alfalfa seed germination, resulting in an 87% germination rate for biochar, 82% for soil conditioner, and 82% for compost. In comparison, untreated seeds displayed a 78% germination rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost gave alfalfa an 82% germination rate.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Treatment
composte0
Outcome
germination ratee0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
82%e0
Qualifier
78%e0
Comparator
untreated seedse0

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“alfalfa seed germination, resulting in an 87% germination rate for biochar, 82% for soil conditioner, and 82% for compost. In comparison, untreated seeds displayed a 78% germination rate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 237–424 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil amendments increased forage production.

Treatment
SAs applicatione0
Outcome
forage productione0
Direction
increasinge0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the positive impact of SAs application on increasing forage production, with varying degrees of enhancement”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil amendments reduced water usage by 40% compared with no amendment at full irrigation.

Outcome
water usagee0
Direction
reductione0
Value
40%e0
Qualifier
100% irrigation (100% ETc)e0
Comparator
treatment without SAse0

Not reportedTaxonTreatment

Verbatim

e0

“a 40% reduction in water usage compared to treatment without SAs but under 100% irrigation (100% ETc)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1128–1229 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results differ

89 papers: 71 positive, 18 negative or no effect

70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

85 papers more in this group

See all 89 papers →

other · yield · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect

12 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
    Fertilizer source did not change alfalfa dry matter yield.

    Response of alfalfa to a phillipsite‐based slow‐release fertilizer · 1994 · compared with soluble potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4)

    No difference from an alternative

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

biochar · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree

17 papers: 17 positive, 0 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 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.