Abstract
Abstract: The present work aimed to improve rose flowering during Winter where most flowers are disappeared and marketing is very profitable. Pruning experiments were carried out on the essential oil yielding hybrid tea rose cultivar (Eiffel tower) at the Floriculture Experimental Farm of Agriculture Faculty, Sohag University, Egypt during two successive years of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Four pruning types (light, medium, heavy and control without pruning) were applied at four different times during Autumn at three weeks intervals. Pruning in Autumn was essential to improve quantity and quality of rose flowering in Winter. The light pruning was the best type for increasing period, quantity and quality of flowers compared to other types. Beginning of Autumn or three weeks later were the best pruning times allowing the highest flowering rate and quality compared to the other tested times. The light prunings at these times were the best treatments increasing significantly all flowering measurements. The study of economical impact of both treatments showed that the light pruning of rose shrubs three weeks after beginning of autumn, the third week of October, is the best treatment for improving flowering in short time. Under this condition, flowers number per plant, flower weight and petals weight per flower were increased by 68.7%, 279.5 % and 219.4 % respectively compared to control. Flower-stem length was improved from 18.0 to 50.7 cm. Flowers and petals weight per feddan 2 (0.42 hectares or 4200 m) were also increased by 540.4 % and 439.0 % respectively. An increment percentage of 735.4 % was also obtained in essential oil content. The reported technique could provide 352.0 thousand flowers of 5.3 tons flowers, 3.8 tons petals and 11.3 liters essential oil per feddan during Winter. It presents a practical and economic solution for producers and commercials to meet out the shortage in rose flowers during this inactive period.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Autumn pruning improved winter flowering quantity and quality.
- Taxon
- rosee0
- Treatment
- Pruning in Autumne0
- Outcome
- quantity and quality of rose flowering in Wintere0
- Direction
- improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Pruning in Autumn was essential to improve quantity and quality of rose flowering in Winter”
Claim · model-written summary
Light pruning gave the best flower period, quantity and quality.
- Treatment
- light pruninge0
- Outcome
- period, quantity and quality of flowerse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- other typese0
RosaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“light pruning was the best type for increasing period, quantity and quality of flowers compared to other types”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning at the beginning of autumn or three weeks later gave the highest flowering rate and quality.
- Treatment
- Beginning of Autumn or three weeks latere0
- Outcome
- flowering rate and qualitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- other tested timese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Beginning of Autumn or three weeks later were the best pruning times allowing the highest flowering rate and quality compared to the other tested times”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Light pruning at these times significantly increased all flowering measurements.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“light prunings at these times were the best treatments increasing significantly all flowering measurements”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Light pruning in late October was judged best for rapid flowering.
- Treatment
- light pruning of rose shrubs three weeks after beginning of autumne0
- Outcome
- best treatment for improving flowering in short timee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“light pruning of rose shrubs three weeks after beginning of autumn, the third week of October, is the best treatment for improving flowering in short time”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower number per plant increased 68.7%.
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“flowers number per plant, flower weight and petals weight per flower were increased by 68.7%, 279.5 % and 219.4 % respectively compared to control”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower weight increased 279.5 %.
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“flowers number per plant, flower weight and petals weight per flower were increased by 68.7%, 279.5 % and 219.4 % respectively compared to control”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Petals weight per flower increased 219.4 %.
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“flowers number per plant, flower weight and petals weight per flower were increased by 68.7%, 279.5 % and 219.4 % respectively compared to control”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower stem length improved from 18.0 to 50.7 cm.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flower-stem length was improved from 18.0 to 50.7 cm”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower weight per feddan increased 540.4 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flowers and petals weight per feddan 2 (0.42 hectares or 4200 m) were also increased by 540.4 % and 439.0 % respectively”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Petals weight per feddan increased 439.0 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flowers and petals weight per feddan 2 (0.42 hectares or 4200 m) were also increased by 540.4 % and 439.0 % respectively”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Essential oil content rose 735.4 %.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An increment percentage of 735.4 % was also obtained in essential oil content”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The technique could yield 352.0 thousand winter flowers per feddan.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reported technique could provide 352.0 thousand flowers of 5.3 tons flowers, 3.8 tons petals and 11.3 liters essential oil per feddan during Winter”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The technique could yield 5.3 tons of flowers per feddan.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reported technique could provide 352.0 thousand flowers of 5.3 tons flowers, 3.8 tons petals and 11.3 liters essential oil per feddan during Winter”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The technique could yield 3.8 tons of petals per feddan.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reported technique could provide 352.0 thousand flowers of 5.3 tons flowers, 3.8 tons petals and 11.3 liters essential oil per feddan during Winter”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The technique could yield 11.3 liters of essential oil per feddan.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reported technique could provide 352.0 thousand flowers of 5.3 tons flowers, 3.8 tons petals and 11.3 liters essential oil per feddan during Winter”
t0“rose (Rosa spp.)”
The same questions in other papers
light · quality: general · RosaPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →pruning · phenology · RosaPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →light · phenology · RosaPositive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →pruning · quality: general · RosaResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.