ArticleBiologia futura2025
Nitrogen supplying capability of wool pellets as an alternative fertilizer depending on soil biological activity.
Article in Biologia futura, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pellets made from waste wool, typically sourced from sheep shearing residues generated by the textile or wool industry, have recently emerged as a promising alternative for plant nutrition. However, limited information is available on the impact of wool pellets (WP), applied at a dosage of 4 g per pot, on soil functioning, biological activity, plant physiology, and nutrient supply. A pot experiment was set up in a randomized block design with four replicates on sweet peppers (Capsicum annuum L.). The effect of WP on permanganate-oxidizable carbon, fluorescein diacetate, and β-glucosidase enzyme activities were investigated in two soils differing in their soil organic matter (SOM) contents (low and high) and compared to the control and a reference N fertilizer solution. The nitrate and total nitrogen content of plants, the photosynthetic pigments, gas exchange intensity, shoot and root biomass, pepper fruit, and photosynthetic rate per total N-uptake were also examined. WP treatments (4 g per pot) increased soil biological activity in both soil types (with 0.58% and 1.84% soil organic matter, respectively) and significantly improved plant physiological parameters and N-use efficiency compared to the control and reference N fertilizer addition. Although the total N content in wool pellets was higher than in the mineral reference N-solution, this reference treatment served as a baseline dose allowing comparison with the N-supply intensity of the WP. WP significantly increased shoot biomass in both soil types, with a more pronounced effect in the low SOM soil due to faster mineralization and higher air capacity. In contrast, higher fruit was achieved in the high SOM soil. WP treatment increased N-uptake to 2.18 and 2.34 mg/week in low and high SOM, respectively. The research findings highlight wool pellets as a powerful alternative to inorganic fertilizers, offering a sustainable nutrient supply. Moreover, utilizing wool a by-product often considered waste as an organic fertilizer contributes to solving both economic and environmental challenges associated with wool disposal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40526221What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.