Abstract
Lentils ( Lens esculenta Moench.) are one of the major cash crops grown in the Palouse region of Idaho and Washington. Since their introduction into the region little research has been concerned with improvement of crop production. Therefore, components of seed yields in lentils were studied to estimate effects of within‐ and between‐row plant spacings. Small, medium and large plant types were studied. Row spacings of 15 and 30 cm were used, with 1.5, 3.0, and 12.0 cm spacings between plants within rows. The effects of spacings on seed size, branching, height, leal‐area index, canopy closure, and interception of light energy were measured and compared with seed yields. In general, lentil yields were greater at the narrow (15‐cm) between‐row spacing and at the 1.5 cm spacing between plants within row. Approximately 20% of the large and small plant type lines closed their canopies at the 30 cm between‐row spacing. The medium plant type lines developed partially closed canopies. Closed canopies intercepted about 90% of the incident light energy; the open canopies intercepted about 47%. This indicated the need for narrow within‐ and between‐row spacing. The higher seed yields appeared to be related to leaf area and branching, of which canopy closure is a function. The percentage of light intercepted at the 15 cm spacing between rows was not measured.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil yield was greater at 15-cm between-row spacing.
- Taxon
- lentil
Lens culinarise0 - Treatment
- narrow (15‐cm) between‐row spacinge0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, lentil yields were greater at the narrow (15‐cm) between‐row spacing and at the 1.5 cm spacing between plants within row.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil yield was greater at 1.5 cm within-row spacing.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- 1.5 cm spacing between plants within rowe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, lentil yields were greater at the narrow (15‐cm) between‐row spacing and at the 1.5 cm spacing between plants within row.”
Claim · model-written summary
Approximately 20% of large-type lentil lines closed canopies at 30 cm between rows.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- largee0
- Treatment
- 30 cm between‐row spacinge0
- Outcome
- closed their canopiese0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Approximately 20% of the large and small plant type lines closed their canopies at the 30 cm between‐row spacing.”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Approximately 20% of small-type lentil lines closed canopies at 30 cm between rows.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- small plant type linese0
- Treatment
- 30 cm between‐row spacinge0
- Outcome
- closed their canopiese0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Approximately 20% of the large and small plant type lines closed their canopies at the 30 cm between‐row spacing.”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium-type lentil lines developed partially closed canopies.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Material
- medium plant type linese0
- Outcome
- partially closed canopiese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The medium plant type lines developed partially closed canopies.”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Closed lentil canopies intercepted about 90% of incident light.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- incident light energye0
- Value
- 90%e0
- Qualifier
- Closed canopiese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Closed canopies intercepted about 90% of the incident light energy; the open canopies intercepted about 47%.”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Open lentil canopies intercepted about 47% of incident light.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- incident light energye0
- Value
- 47%e0
- Qualifier
- open canopiese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Closed canopies intercepted about 90% of the incident light energy; the open canopies intercepted about 47%.”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend narrow within- and between-row spacing.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Outcome
- narrow within‐ and between‐row spacinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This indicated the need for narrow within‐ and between‐row spacing.”
t0“Lentil”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher lentil seed yields appeared related to leaf area and branching.
- Taxon
- LentilLens culinarist0
- Organ / stage
- leafe0
- Outcome
- seed yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- appeared to be related to leaf area and branchinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher seed yields appeared to be related to leaf area and branching, of which canopy closure is a function.”
t0“Lentil”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 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.