Abstract
The relationships between 9 substrates and the growth of Camellia oleifera container steckling were studied to screen out the optimum substrate suitable for the growth of C.oleifera from 2009 to 2010 in ShuCheng and Heifei,Anhui province.The results showed that: the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅲ raised planting survival rate by 20% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleifera
Camellia oleiferat0 - Treatment
- substrate Ⅲe0
- Outcome
- planting survival ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅶ raised planting survival rate by 16% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅶe0
- Outcome
- planting survival ratee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 16%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅵ raised number of leaves by 84.21% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅵe0
- Outcome
- number of leavese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 84.21%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅴ raised number of leaves by 78.95% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅴe0
- Outcome
- number of leavese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 78.95%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅵ raised height by 56.34% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅵe0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 56.34%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅴ raised height by 20.03% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅴe0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20.03%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅵ raised aboveground weight by 94.59% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅵe0
- Outcome
- aboveground weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 94.59%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅴ raised aboveground weight by 54.05% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅴe0
- Outcome
- aboveground weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 54.05%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅵ raised whole plant of weight by 121.52% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅵe0
- Outcome
- whole plant of weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 121.52%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅴ raised whole plant of weight by 81.01% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅴe0
- Outcome
- whole plant of weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 81.01%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅲ raised underground weight by 193.75% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅲe0
- Outcome
- underground weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 193.75%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅷ raised underground weight by 118.75% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- Ⅷe0
- Outcome
- underground weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 118.75%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate Ⅶ raised length of main root by 153.44% versus control.
- Taxon
- Camellia oleiferaCamellia oleiferat0
- Treatment
- substrate Ⅶe0
- Outcome
- length of main roote0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 153.44%e0
- Comparator
- CGe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the planting survival rate of the substrate Ⅲ,Ⅶ,were 20%,16% respectively higher than the control group(CG);the substrate Ⅵ and Ⅴ had significant effects on the growth of the cuttings,such as the number of leaves,which were 84.21% and 78.95% higher than CG;the height were 56.34% and 20.03% higher than CG;the growth of aboveground weight were 94.59%,54.05% respectively higher than CG and the whole plant of weight were121.52% and 81.01% higher than CG;underground weight of substrate Ⅲ and Ⅷ were 193.75% and 118.75% respectively higher than CG;the length of main root of substrate Ⅶ was153.44% higher than CG”
t0“Camellia oleifera”
The same questions in other papers
growing medium · survival · Camellia oleifera (tea-oil Camellia)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
growing medium · growth · Camellia oleifera (tea-oil Camellia)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.