Abstract
Indolebutyric acid, naphthaleneacetic acid, and gibberellic acid did not improve the rooting of cuttings of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 rootstocks. The use of IBA improved the rooting of cuttings of Salt Creek. Gibberellic acid was detrimental to the rooting of cuttings of Salt Creek. The solution containing IBA-NAA was detrimental to the rooting of cuttings of 1613, Salt Creek, and AXR #1. The use of bottom heat did not improve the rooting of cuttings of Salt Creek.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Indolebutyric acid did not improve rooting of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 cuttings.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Material
- St. George, 1613, and AXR #1e0
- Treatment
- Indolebutyric acide0
- Outcome
- rootinge0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Indolebutyric acid, naphthaleneacetic acid, and gibberellic acid did not improve the rooting of cuttings of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 rootstocks”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
Naphthaleneacetic acid did not improve rooting of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 cuttings.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Material
- St. George, 1613, and AXR #1e0
- Treatment
- naphthaleneacetic acide0
- Outcome
- rootinge0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Indolebutyric acid, naphthaleneacetic acid, and gibberellic acid did not improve the rooting of cuttings of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 rootstocks”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellic acid did not improve rooting of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 cuttings.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Material
- St. George, 1613, and AXR #1e0
- Treatment
- gibberellic acide0
- Outcome
- rootinge0
- Direction
- did not improvee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Indolebutyric acid, naphthaleneacetic acid, and gibberellic acid did not improve the rooting of cuttings of St. George, 1613, and AXR #1 rootstocks”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
IBA improved rooting of Salt Creek cuttings.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The use of IBA improved the rooting of cuttings of Salt Creek”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellic acid was detrimental to Salt Creek rooting.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Gibberellic acid was detrimental to the rooting of cuttings of Salt Creek”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
IBA-NAA was detrimental to 1613, Salt Creek, and AXR #1 rooting.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Material
- 1613, Salt Creek, and AXR #1e0
- Treatment
- IBA-NAAe0
- Outcome
- rootinge0
- Direction
- detrimentale0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The solution containing IBA-NAA was detrimental to the rooting of cuttings of 1613, Salt Creek, and AXR #1”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
Claim · model-written summary
Bottom heat did not improve Salt Creek rooting.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The use of bottom heat did not improve the rooting of cuttings of Salt Creek”
t0“Grape Cuttings”
The same questions in other papers
1-naphthaleneacetic acid · growth · VitisResults differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →Gibberellic acid · growth · VitisResults differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →indole-3-butyric acid · growth · VitisResults differ
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →heat · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 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.