Abstract
The present study was based on the general hypothesis that boron may affect the accumulation and utilization of other micronutrients in plants. A field experiment was conducted to find the effect of boron on yield, quality and micronutrients content of flue cured virginia tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) at Tobacco Research Station Khan Garhi, Mardan-Pakistan, during 2010-11. Two varieties TM-2008 and Speight G-28 were tested and six levels of boron (0, 0.5, 1, 2.0, 3.0 and 5.0 kg ha -1 ) in the form of boric acid, in RCB design in split plot arrangement and replicated thrice. A basal dose of 70 kg ha - 1 each N, P2O5 and K2O were applied. Recommended levels of micronutrients (Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn) were applied in sulphate form. Results indicated that the yield of tobacco crop significantly increased at 1 kg B ha -1 and then decreased linearly in both varieties. In variety Speight G-28 a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index were recorded as 800.9 cm 2 , 15691 kg ha -1 , 2488 kg ha -1 and 85%, respectively, while in TM-2008 the yield attributes were 786.02 cm 2 , 15028 kg ha -1 , 2383 kg ha -1 and 83%, respectively. Maximum sugar and nicotine contents were recorded in Speight G-28 was 17.27 and 1.22 %, respectively, while in case of TM-2008 these were 14.69 and 1.20 %, respectively, at 1 kg B ha -1 application. The sugar/nicotine ratio increased at lower concentrations of leaf boron but at higher concentrations it tends to decrease in both varieties. Similarly, with the application of boron the chloride content was decreased while that of potassium was increased. Boron application increased the concentrations of boron and zinc, decreased copper and manganese while no effect on iron. Overall results revealed that the application of boron should be encouraged to get a higher yield, good quality tobacco and balancing nutrient concentrations. The rate of 1 kg B ha -1 was found better and can be
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Tobacco yield rose significantly at 1 kg B ha -1, then declined with higher rates.
- Taxon
- tobacco
Nicotiana tabacume0 - Treatment
- 1 kg B ha -1e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield of tobacco crop significantly increased at 1 kg B ha -1 and then decreased linearly in both varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Speight G-28 reached a maximum leaf area of 800.9 cm 2.
Verbatim
e0“In variety Speight G-28 a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index were recorded as 800.9 cm 2 , 15691 kg ha -1 , 2488 kg ha -1 and 85%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Speight G-28 reached a maximum green leaf weight of 15691 kg ha -1.
Verbatim
e0“In variety Speight G-28 a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index were recorded as 800.9 cm 2 , 15691 kg ha -1 , 2488 kg ha -1 and 85%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Speight G-28 reached a maximum cured leaf weight of 2488 kg ha -1.
Verbatim
e0“In variety Speight G-28 a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index were recorded as 800.9 cm 2 , 15691 kg ha -1 , 2488 kg ha -1 and 85%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Speight G-28 reached a maximum grade index of 85%.
Verbatim
e0“In variety Speight G-28 a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index were recorded as 800.9 cm 2 , 15691 kg ha -1 , 2488 kg ha -1 and 85%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
TM-2008 leaf area was 786.02 cm 2.
Verbatim
e0“in TM-2008 the yield attributes were 786.02 cm 2 , 15028 kg ha -1 , 2383 kg ha -1 and 83%, respectively”
e1“a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index”
Claim · model-written summary
TM-2008 green leaf weight was 15028 kg ha -1.
Verbatim
e0“in TM-2008 the yield attributes were 786.02 cm 2 , 15028 kg ha -1 , 2383 kg ha -1 and 83%, respectively”
e1“a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index”
Claim · model-written summary
TM-2008 cured leaf weight was 2383 kg ha -1.
Verbatim
e0“in TM-2008 the yield attributes were 786.02 cm 2 , 15028 kg ha -1 , 2383 kg ha -1 and 83%, respectively”
e1“a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index”
Claim · model-written summary
TM-2008 grade index was 83%.
Verbatim
e0“in TM-2008 the yield attributes were 786.02 cm 2 , 15028 kg ha -1 , 2383 kg ha -1 and 83%, respectively”
e1“a maximum leaf area, green leaf weight, cured leaf weight and grade index”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1 kg B ha -1, Speight G-28 sugar content reached 17.27%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Maximum sugar and nicotine contents were recorded in Speight G-28 was 17.27 and 1.22 %, respectively, while in case of TM-2008 these were 14.69 and 1.20 %, respectively, at 1 kg B ha -1 application”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1 kg B ha -1, Speight G-28 nicotine content reached 1.22%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Maximum sugar and nicotine contents were recorded in Speight G-28 was 17.27 and 1.22 %, respectively, while in case of TM-2008 these were 14.69 and 1.20 %, respectively, at 1 kg B ha -1 application”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1 kg B ha -1, TM-2008 sugar content was 14.69%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Maximum sugar and nicotine contents were recorded in Speight G-28 was 17.27 and 1.22 %, respectively, while in case of TM-2008 these were 14.69 and 1.20 %, respectively, at 1 kg B ha -1 application”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1 kg B ha -1, TM-2008 nicotine content was 1.20%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Maximum sugar and nicotine contents were recorded in Speight G-28 was 17.27 and 1.22 %, respectively, while in case of TM-2008 these were 14.69 and 1.20 %, respectively, at 1 kg B ha -1 application”
Claim · model-written summary
The sugar/nicotine ratio rose at lower leaf boron concentrations in both varieties.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Compound
- leaf borone0
- Outcome
- sugar/nicotine ratioe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- lower concentrationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sugar/nicotine ratio increased at lower concentrations of leaf boron but at higher concentrations it tends to decrease in both varieties”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The sugar/nicotine ratio tended to fall at higher leaf boron concentrations in both varieties.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Compound
- leaf borone0
- Outcome
- sugar/nicotine ratioe0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- higher concentrationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The sugar/nicotine ratio increased at lower concentrations of leaf boron but at higher concentrations it tends to decrease in both varieties”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Boron application reduced tobacco chloride content.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- application of borone0
- Outcome
- chloride contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with the application of boron the chloride content was decreased while that of potassium was increased”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Boron application increased tobacco potassium content.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- application of borone0
- Outcome
- potassiume0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with the application of boron the chloride content was decreased while that of potassium was increased”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Boron application increased tobacco boron and zinc concentrations.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- Boron applicatione0
- Outcome
- concentrations of boron and zince0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Boron application increased the concentrations of boron and zinc, decreased copper and manganese while no effect on iron”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Boron application decreased tobacco copper and manganese concentrations.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- Boron applicatione0
- Outcome
- copper and manganesee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Boron application increased the concentrations of boron and zinc, decreased copper and manganese while no effect on iron”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Boron application had no reported effect on tobacco iron content.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- Boron applicatione0
- Outcome
- irone0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Boron application increased the concentrations of boron and zinc, decreased copper and manganese while no effect on iron”
e1“tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
boron atom · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.