Abstract
[Objective] To demonstrate the effects of transplanting date and nitrogen application on quality and unique style of KRK26 flue-cured tobacco cultivars introduced from Zimbabwe.[Method] With several variables of three different transplanting date and two different fertilization amount,a split-plot experiment was conducted to study the quality and unique style,such as flavor,sweetness,aroma quality,aroma amount,offensive odor,exquisite fineness,irritation,physiological strength,remaining taste,etc.,of KRK26.[Result] The full-bodied flavor and baking-sweet flavor of flue-cured tobacco leaves faded down,the fen-flavor intensified,the aroma quality smelled better,the offensive odor smelled lighter,the smoking became more exquisite,the irritation decreased,the remaining taste tasted better,and the composite score of smoking quality increased with the transplanting date had been moved up.ANOVA analysis indicated that there was significantly difference among three transplanting date treatments in some smoking quality indexes such as aroma quality,offensive odor,exquisite fineness,irritation,remaining taste and the composite scores of smoking quality,but there was no significantly difference in other indexes such as aroma amount,physiological strength and taste strength.The scores of aroma amount of N1 treatment was significantly higher than that of N2 treatment(P=0.0070.01),and the composite scores of smoking quality of N1 treatment was slightly higher than that of N2 treatment,but there was no significant difference between N1 and N2 treatment in other smoking quality indexes such as aroma quality,offensive odor,exquisite fensive,taste strength,physiological strength,irritation and remaining taste.[Conclusion] The quality and unique style of KRK26 had been changed markedly by changing the transplanting date,and the best fertilization amount was decided to be 112.5 g/hm2.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier transplanting reduced full-bodied and baking-sweet flavor and intensified fen-flavor.
- Taxon
- tobacco
Nicotiana tabacume0 - Organ / stage
- leavese0
- Outcome
- full-bodied flavor and baking-sweet flavore0
- Direction
- faded downe0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The full-bodied flavor and baking-sweet flavor of flue-cured tobacco leaves faded down,the fen-flavor intensified”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier transplanting improved aroma quality and reduced offensive odor.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- aroma qualitye0
- Direction
- bettere0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the aroma quality smelled better,the offensive odor smelled lighter”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier transplanting improved fineness and lowered irritation.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- irritatione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the smoking became more exquisite,the irritation decreased”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Earlier transplanting improved remaining taste and composite smoking score.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- transplanting date had been moved upe0
- Outcome
- composite score of smoking qualitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the remaining taste tasted better,and the composite score of smoking quality increased with the transplanting date had been moved up.”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Transplant dates differed significantly in aroma quality, offensive odor, fineness, irritation, remaining taste and composite score.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- smoking quality indexese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was significantly difference among three transplanting date treatments in some smoking quality indexes such as aroma quality,offensive odor,exquisite fineness,irritation,remaining taste and the composite scores of smoking quality”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Transplant dates did not differ significantly for aroma amount, physiological strength or taste strength.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- aroma amount,physiological strength and taste strengthe0
- Direction
- no significantly differencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significantly difference in other indexes such as aroma amount,physiological strength and taste strength.”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
N1 had a significantly higher aroma amount score than N2.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- N1 treatmente0
- Outcome
- scores of aroma amounte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- N2 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The scores of aroma amount of N1 treatment was significantly higher than that of N2 treatment(P=0.0070.01)”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
N1 composite smoking quality score was slightly above N2.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Treatment
- N1 treatmente0
- Outcome
- composite scores of smoking qualitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- N2 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the composite scores of smoking quality of N1 treatment was slightly higher than that of N2 treatment”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
N1 and N2 did not differ significantly in the other listed smoking quality indexes.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- other smoking quality indexese0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference between N1 and N2 treatment in other smoking quality indexes such as aroma quality,offensive odor,exquisite fensive,taste strength,physiological strength,irritation and remaining taste.”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors selected 112.5 g/hm2 as the best fertilization amount.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacumt0
- Outcome
- best fertilization amounte0
- Value
- 112.5 g/hm2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the best fertilization amount was decided to be 112.5 g/hm2.”
t0“Tobacco Cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · quality: general · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.