Abstract
Abstract Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates. The effects of population densities of up to 395,000 plants/ha on kenaf have been evaluated in Maryland. Because positive yield responses have been derived from higher populations at other locations, the effects of five population densities [247,100 (PI), 370,700 (P2), 494,200 (P3), 617,800 (P4), and 741,300 (P5) plants/ha] on ‘Cuba‐2032’ and ‘Tainung‐1’ were studied in 1976 and 1977 on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Soil was a Bertie silt loam (fine‐loamy, mixed thermic Aquic Hapludult). Yields of Tainung‐1 were maximized at approximately 370,000 plants/ha whereas yields of the less vigorous Cuba‐ 2032 were maximized at approximately 500,000 to 700,000 plants/ha. Plants grown at P1 and P2 generally achieved greater height and stem diameter than those grown at P3 to P5; stand reduction was generally higher at P3 to P5 than at P1 and P2. Neither height nor stem diameter was significantly correlated with percent stand reduction. The primary cause of stand loss was probably greater intraspecific competition at the higher populations. Early (28 April) and late (19 May) planting of kenaf led to comparable dry matter yields in a 1970 study in Maryland. We concluded that a more detailed study of planting date was needed and experiments were conducted in 1976 and 1977 on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Soil and cultivars were the same as for the density studies. Planting dates were 5 May in 1976 and 11 May in 1977 (D1), 19 May (D2), 2 June (D3), 16 June (M), and 30 June (D5). Planting on D1 and D2 generally led to significantly (0.01 level) greater yields than did planting on D3 to D5. Date of planting had no substantial effect on height; stem diameter and stand reduction responses were erratic.
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
Yields of Tainung were maximized at approximately 370,000 plants/ha.
- Taxon
- kenaf
Hibiscus cannabinuse0 - Material
- Tainunge1
- Treatment
- population densitiese2
- Outcome
- Yieldse1
- Direction
- maximizede1
- Value
- approximately 370,000 plants/hae1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e1“Yields of Tainung‐1 were maximized at approximately 370,000 plants/ha”
e2“the effects of five population densities”
Claim · model-written summary
Yields of the less vigorous Cuba were maximized at approximately 500,000 to 700,000 plants/ha.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Material
- Cubae3
- Treatment
- population densitiese2
- Outcome
- yieldse3
- Direction
- maximizede3
- Value
- approximately 500,000 to 700,000 plants/hae3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e2“the effects of five population densities”
e3“yields of the less vigorous Cuba‐ 2032 were maximized at approximately 500,000 to 700,000 plants/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting on D1 and D2 gave significantly greater yields than planting on D3 to D5.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Treatment
- Planting on D1 and D2e4
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Qualifier
- 0.01 levele4
- Comparator
- planting on D3 to D5e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e4“Planting on D1 and D2 generally led to significantly (0.01 level) greater yields than did planting on D3 to D5”
Claim · model-written summary
Date of planting had no substantial effect on kenaf height.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Treatment
- Date of plantinge6
- Outcome
- heighte6
- Direction
- no substantial effecte6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e6“Date of planting had no substantial effect on height; stem diameter and stand reduction responses were erratic”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem diameter and stand reduction responses to planting date were erratic.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Treatment
- Date of plantinge6
- Outcome
- stem diameter and stand reduction responsese6
- Direction
- erratice6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e6“Date of planting had no substantial effect on height; stem diameter and stand reduction responses were erratic”
Claim · model-written summary
Plants at P1 and P2 densities achieved greater height and stem diameter than those at P3 to P5.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Treatment
- P1 and P2e7
- Outcome
- height and stem diametere7
- Direction
- greatere7
- Comparator
- P3 to P5e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e7“Plants grown at P1 and P2 generally achieved greater height and stem diameter than those grown at P3 to P5”
Claim · model-written summary
Stand reduction was higher at P3 to P5 than at P1 and P2.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Treatment
- P3 to P5e1
- Outcome
- stand reductione1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- P1 and P2e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e1“stand reduction was generally higher at P3 to P5 than at P1 and P2”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither height nor stem diameter was significantly correlated with percent stand reduction.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Outcome
- height nor stem diametere1
- Direction
- significantly correlatede1
- Comparator
- percent stand reductione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e1“Neither height nor stem diameter was significantly correlated with percent stand reduction”
Claim · model-written summary
The primary cause of stand loss is probably greater intraspecific competition at higher populations.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinuse0
- Treatment
- higher populationse2
- Outcome
- stand losse2
- Qualifier
- probably greater intraspecific competitione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Population density and planting date can have substantial effects on kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus L.) performance in temperate climates”
e2“The primary cause of stand loss was probably greater intraspecific competition at the higher populations”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · growth · Hibiscus cannabinus (kenaf)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
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.