Abstract
The plant density and spatial arrangement of kenaf is an important aspect in kenaf fiber production. A field plant density experiment was conducted at Ledesma (Jujuy, Argentina) in 2001 on a sandy loam soil. The treatments used were different combinations of 35 and 70 cm row spacings with lineal sowing densities of 25 and 40 plants m-1, and were applied to the Cuba 108, Endora and Tainung 1 cultivars. Two indices (bark content and bark index) related to fiber yield and useful for the individual selection of plants were measured. The combination of 35 cm row spacing and 25 plants m-1 lineal sowing density, representing an initial density of 714,286 plants ha-1, resulted in the best dry bark yield for the three cultivars. As a result of strong intraspecific competition, height and diameter of the plants decreased while plant density increased. The initial lineal density of 40 plants m-1 was not advantageous in comparison to 25 plants m-1, because plant survival rates were reduced at 40 plants m-1 and yield did not increase linearly.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
The 35 cm by 25 plants m-1 combination gave the best dry bark yield for three cultivars.
- Taxon
- kenaf
Hibiscus cannabinust0 - Treatment
- 35 cm row spacing and 25 plants m-1 lineal sowing densitye0
- Outcome
- dry bark yielde0
- Direction
- beste0
- Value
- 714,286 plants ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combination of 35 cm row spacing and 25 plants m-1 lineal sowing density, representing an initial density of 714,286 plants ha-1, resulted in the best dry bark yield for the three cultivars”
t0“kenaf”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant height decreased as density increased.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- plant densitye0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“height and diameter of the plants decreased while plant density increased”
t0“kenaf”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant diameter decreased as density increased.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- plant densitye0
- Outcome
- diametere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“height and diameter of the plants decreased while plant density increased”
t0“kenaf”
Claim · model-written summary
Survival was lower at 40 than 25 plants m-1.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- 40 plants m-1e0
- Outcome
- plant survival ratese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- 25 plants m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The initial lineal density of 40 plants m-1 was not advantageous in comparison to 25 plants m-1, because plant survival rates were reduced at 40 plants m-1 and yield did not increase linearly”
t0“kenaf”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield did not rise linearly at 40 plants m-1.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- 40 plants m-1e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not increase linearlye0
- Comparator
- 25 plants m-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The initial lineal density of 40 plants m-1 was not advantageous in comparison to 25 plants m-1, because plant survival rates were reduced at 40 plants m-1 and yield did not increase linearly”
t0“kenaf”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Hibiscus cannabinus (kenaf)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.