Abstract
Rosemary seedlings are obtained by vegetative propagation because the seeds present low viability. Despite being an expanding crop, there is little information on water consumption during the propagation stage. Water levels and irrigation frequencies were therefore applied using a completely randomised design having a 4 x 2 factorial arrangement. The first factor concerned irrigation frequency (4 and 8 days) and the second concerned water level (0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 evaporation inside the greenhouse). A 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequency presented the best results regarding height (39.3 cm), fresh weight, dry weight and branch length (146 cm). Water level affected the fresh and dry weight of leaves regardless of frequency. Relative water content in leaves did not present differences due to environmental conditions minimising treatment effect. Rooting percenttage showed no significant differences regarding irrigation frequency or water level. Irrigation frequency did not affect rosemary growing pattern because sphagnum retains high moisture content. The best branch number (34) was obtained with 1.0 coefficient and 4-day frequency, this being important from the production point of view because this is the material which is sold. Water management changes photoassimilate distribution in rosemary plants.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
A 1.0 coefficient with four-day irrigation gave the best height.
- Taxon
- rosemary
Salvia rosmarinust0 - Treatment
- 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequencye0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- beste0
- Value
- 39.3 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequency presented the best results regarding height (39.3 cm), fresh weight, dry weight and branch length (146 cm)”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
The same regime gave the best fresh and dry weight.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinust0
- Treatment
- 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequencye0
- Outcome
- fresh weight, dry weighte0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequency presented the best results regarding height (39.3 cm), fresh weight, dry weight and branch length (146 cm)”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
The same regime gave best branch length of 146 cm.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinust0
- Treatment
- 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequencye0
- Outcome
- branch lengthe0
- Direction
- beste0
- Value
- 146 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 1.0 coefficient combined with 4-day irrigation frequency presented the best results regarding height (39.3 cm), fresh weight, dry weight and branch length (146 cm)”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
Water level affected leaf fresh and dry weight regardless of frequency.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinust0
- Treatment
- Water levele0
- Outcome
- fresh and dry weight of leavese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water level affected the fresh and dry weight of leaves regardless of frequency”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf relative water content did not differ.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinust0
- Treatment
- environmental conditionse0
- Outcome
- Relative water content in leavese0
- Direction
- did not present differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Relative water content in leaves did not present differences due to environmental conditions minimising treatment effect”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
Rooting percentage did not differ significantly by irrigation frequency or water level.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinust0
- Treatment
- irrigation frequency or water levele0
- Outcome
- Rooting percenttagee0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rooting percenttage showed no significant differences regarding irrigation frequency or water level”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
The best branch number was 34 with 1.0 coefficient and four-day frequency.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinust0
- Treatment
- 1.0 coefficient and 4-day frequencye0
- Outcome
- branch numbere0
- Direction
- beste0
- Value
- 34e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best branch number (34) was obtained with 1.0 coefficient and 4-day frequency”
t0“rosemary”
Claim · model-written summary
Water management altered photoassimilate distribution.
- Taxon
- rosemarySalvia rosmarinuse0
- Treatment
- Water managemente0
- Outcome
- photoassimilate distributione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water management changes photoassimilate distribution in rosemary plants”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.