Paper · 1970 · Agronomy Journal

Effect of Soil Gas Composition and Flooding on Growth of Nicotiana tabacum L1

R. E. Williamson

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
14
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding and to soil treatments consisting of combinations of O 2 , CO 2 ) and N, gases were determined from leaf area and plant height changes and from final root weights. Leaf area and plant height were measured before treatment and after a 5‐day recovery period following treatment; root weights were obtained after the recovery period. The plants were grown in acrylic containers of soil located in an artificially lighted, controlled environment room. Flooding and pure N 2 treatments for 24 hours almost prevented further growth. After 48‐hour treatments with pure N 2 and flooding, roots and shoots were almost dead. Growth of plants treated with 1% O 2 or 1% O 2 + 20% CO 2 was significantly less than that of the control. The 1% O 2 + 20% CO 2 treatment reduced leaf growth significantly more than did 1% O 2 . Although 1% O 2 and 1% O 2 + 20% CO 2 caused injury, plants treated with these gaseous mixtures exhibited near normal growth at the end of a 5‐day recovery period. Permanent injury of tobacco by flooding is primarily due to lack of O 2 in the root zone and not to excess CO 2 . Results obtained in the soil system were similar to those previously obtained in spray nutrient solution culture.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flooding and pure N2 for 24 hours almost prevented further tobacco growth.

Taxon
Nicotiana tabacumNicotiana tabacume0
Treatment
Flooding and pure N 2 treatments for 24 hourse1
Outcome
further growthe1
Direction
almost preventede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e1

“Flooding and pure N 2 treatments for 24 hours almost prevented further growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 507–584 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After 48 h, pure N2 and flooding left tobacco roots and shoots almost dead.

Taxon
Nicotiana tabacumNicotiana tabacume0
Treatment
pure N 2 and floodinge2
Outcome
roots and shootse2
Direction
almost deade2

Not reportedComparator

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e2

“treatments with pure N 2 and flooding, roots and shoots were almost dead”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–672 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth of tobacco treated with 1% O2 or 1% O2 + 20% CO2 was significantly less than the control.

Taxon
Nicotiana tabacumNicotiana tabacume0
Treatment
1% O 2 or 1% O 2 + 20% CO 2e3
Outcome
Growthe3
Direction
significantly lesse3
Comparator
the controle3

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e3

“Growth of plants treated with 1% O 2 or 1% O 2 + 20% CO 2 was significantly less than that of the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–779 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 1% O2 + 20% CO2 treatment reduced tobacco leaf growth significantly more than 1% O2 alone.

Taxon
Nicotiana tabacumNicotiana tabacume0
Treatment
1% O 2 + 20% CO 2e4
Outcome
leaf growthe4
Direction
reducede4
Comparator
1% O 2e4

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e4

“The 1% O 2 + 20% CO 2 treatment reduced leaf growth significantly more than did 1% O 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 781–867 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tobacco plants treated with the gas mixtures showed near normal growth after recovery.

Taxon
Nicotiana tabacumNicotiana tabacume0
Treatment
these gaseous mixturese5
Outcome
growthe5
Direction
near normale5

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e5

“plants treated with these gaseous mixtures exhibited near normal growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–994 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Permanent tobacco injury by flooding is primarily due to lack of O2 in the root zone, not excess CO2.

Treatment
floodinge6
Outcome
Permanent injurye6
Qualifier
lack of O 2 in the root zonee6

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e6

“Permanent injury of tobacco by flooding is primarily due to lack of O 2 in the root zone and not to excess CO 2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1034–1145 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tobacco results in the soil system were similar to those in spray nutrient solution culture.

Taxon
Nicotiana tabacumNicotiana tabacume0
Outcome
Results obtained in the soil systeme7
Direction
similare7
Comparator
spray nutrient solution culturee7

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The responses of Nicotiana tabacum L. to flooding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–58 · show in text ↑
e7

“Results obtained in the soil system were similar to those previously obtained in spray nutrient solution culture”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1148–1260 · show in text ↑

flooding · growth · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 3 positive, 6 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

co2 · growth · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 12 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 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.