Abstract
The potting experiment was conducted to study the effect of slow-release-compound fertilizers(SRF) on yield and quality of cabbage.The results showed that SRF could significantly increase the yield of cabbage compared with CCF(by 16.4% sampled after 35d and 13.9% after 45d,respectively),and had no significant difference compared with coated fertilizer(CRF).The SRF could improve nutritional quality,such as the contents of vitamin C,amino acid,reductive sugar and crude protein due to slow releasing nutrient ability and added organic fertilizers of SRF.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
SRF increased cabbage yield by 16.4% at 35 days compared with CCF.
- Taxon
- cabbage
Brassica oleracea var. capitatae0 - Treatment
- SRFe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 16.4%e0
- Qualifier
- sampled after 35de0
- Comparator
- CCFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SRF could significantly increase the yield of cabbage compared with CCF(by 16.4% sampled after 35d and 13.9% after 45d,respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF increased cabbage yield by 13.9% at 45 days compared with CCF.
- Taxon
- cabbageBrassica oleracea var. capitatae0
- Treatment
- SRFe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 13.9%e0
- Qualifier
- after 45de0
- Comparator
- CCFe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SRF could significantly increase the yield of cabbage compared with CCF(by 16.4% sampled after 35d and 13.9% after 45d,respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cabbage yield under SRF did not differ significantly from coated fertilizer.
- Taxon
- cabbageBrassica oleracea var. capitatat0
- Outcome
- yieldt0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- coated fertilizer(CRF)e0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“had no significant difference compared with coated fertilizer(CRF)”
t0“yield and quality in cabbage”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF improved the vitamin C, amino acid and reductive sugar contents of cabbage.
- Taxon
- cabbageBrassica oleracea var. capitatat0
- Treatment
- SRFe0
- Outcome
- contents of vitamin C,amino acid,reductive sugare0
- Direction
- improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SRF could improve nutritional quality,such as the contents of vitamin C,amino acid,reductive sugar and crude protein”
t0“cabbage”
Claim · model-written summary
SRF improved the crude protein content of cabbage.
- Taxon
- cabbageBrassica oleracea var. capitatat0
- Treatment
- SRFe0
- Outcome
- crude proteine0
- Direction
- improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The SRF could improve nutritional quality,such as the contents of vitamin C,amino acid,reductive sugar and crude protein”
t0“cabbage”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: phytochemicals · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results differ
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →fertilization · quality: protein · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →fertilization · yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results
444 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
492 papers more in this group
See all 496 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.