Paper · 2006 · HortScience

(81) Effect of Ethephon on Establishment of Herbaceous Ornamentals in a Landscape—Response of Plants During Production Phase

Sudeep Vyapari; Robert Graves; Edmund Thralls

10
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · public-domain

Abstract

Use of growth regulators in ornamental plant production is a common nursery practice. Research conducted in determining landscape establishment of herbaceous plants treated with various concentrations of growth regulators is limited. The first phase of this study was conducted to evaluate response of three herbaceous ornamental species to application of ethephon. Containerized plants of irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia were treated once with FLOREL® (ethephon) at 0, 250, 500, or 750 ppm 2 weeks after transplanting into #1 size containers. During the course of the 6-week production period, standard nursery practices of fertigation, pest control, and weed management were followed. Data were collected on growth indices and marketable quality ratings (scale of 1–5) every 2 weeks. Mean initial and final shoot and root dry weights were calculated at the start and end of this phase of the experiment. The experimental design was completely randomized and data analyses were made using the analysis of variance with SAS general linear model procedure. Growth indices (cm) were significantly affected by increasing concentrations of FLOREL®. At 750 ppm concentration the mean growth indices were low (2516 cm) whereas, control (0 ppm) produced the highest mean growth indices (4317 cm). Significant differences in marketable quality ratings were also observed among the treatments where control (0 ppm) plants had the best mean rating (4.3) as compared with 500 ppm (3.6) or 750 ppm (3.5) concentrations. Salvia produced mean growth indices and mean width of 9106 and 513 cm, respectively. However, irish moss had asignificantly higher mean quality rating (4.4) when compared with either salvia (3.7) or scotch moss (3.3).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed public-domain. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing FLOREL concentrations significantly affected ornamental growth indices.

Taxon
irish moss, scotch moss, and salviae1
Treatment
increasing concentrations of FLOREL®e0
Outcome
Growth indicese0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Growth indices (cm) were significantly affected by increasing concentrations of FLOREL®.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1060–1148 · show in text ↑
e1

“irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–425 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 750 ppm, mean growth indices were low at 2516 cm.

Taxon
irish moss, scotch moss, and salviae1
Treatment
750 ppm concentratione0
Outcome
mean growth indicese0
Direction
lowe0
Value
2516 cme0
Qualifier
4317 cme0
Comparator
control (0 ppm)e0

Verbatim

e0

“At 750 ppm concentration the mean growth indices were low (2516 cm) whereas, control (0 ppm) produced the highest mean growth indices (4317 cm).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1149–1293 · show in text ↑
e1

“irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–425 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control plants had highest mean growth indices of 4317 cm.

Taxon
irish moss, scotch moss, and salviae1
Treatment
control (0 ppm)e0
Outcome
mean growth indicese0
Direction
higheste0
Value
4317 cme0

Verbatim

e0

“control (0 ppm) produced the highest mean growth indices (4317 cm)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1226–1292 · show in text ↑
e1

“irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–425 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control plants had the best marketable quality rating, 4.3.

Taxon
irish moss, scotch moss, and salviae1
Treatment
control (0 ppm)e0
Outcome
mean ratinge0
Direction
beste0
Value
4.3e0

Verbatim

e0

“control (0 ppm) plants had the best mean rating (4.3)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1394–1447 · show in text ↑
e1

“irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–425 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At 500 ppm the quality rating was 3.6 versus 4.3 in controls.

Taxon
irish moss, scotch moss, and salviae1
Treatment
500 ppme0
Outcome
mean ratinge0
Direction
as compared withe0
Value
3.6e0
Qualifier
4.3e0
Comparator
control (0 ppm)e0

Verbatim

e0

“control (0 ppm) plants had the best mean rating (4.3) as compared with 500 ppm (3.6)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1394–1478 · show in text ↑
e1

“irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–425 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At 750 ppm the quality rating was 3.5 versus 4.3 in controls.

Taxon
irish moss, scotch moss, and salviae1
Treatment
750 ppme0
Outcome
mean ratinge0
Direction
beste0
Value
3.5e0
Qualifier
4.3e0
Comparator
control (0 ppm)e0

Verbatim

e0

“control (0 ppm) plants had the best mean rating (4.3) as compared with 500 ppm (3.6) or 750 ppm (3.5)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1394–1495 · show in text ↑
e1

“irish moss, scotch moss, and salvia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–425 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salvia mean growth indices were 9106.

Taxon
SalviaSalviae0
Outcome
mean growth indicese0
Value
9106e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Salvia
Salvia · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Rob Hille · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Salvia produced mean growth indices and mean width of 9106 and 513 cm, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1512–1596 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salvia mean width was 513 cm.

Taxon
SalviaSalviae0
Outcome
mean widthe0
Value
513 cme0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Salvia
Salvia · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Rob Hille · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Salvia produced mean growth indices and mean width of 9106 and 513 cm, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1512–1596 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irish moss had a significantly higher mean quality rating of 4.4 than salvia at 3.7.

Taxon
irish mossChondrus crispuse0
Outcome
mean quality ratinge0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.4e0
Qualifier
3.7e0
Comparator
salviae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chondrus crispus
Chondrus crispus · TaxonLuis Fernández García · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“irish moss had asignificantly higher mean quality rating (4.4) when compared with either salvia (3.7) or scotch moss (3.3)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1606–1728 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irish moss had a significantly higher mean quality rating of 4.4 than scotch moss at 3.3.

Taxon
irish mossChondrus crispuse0
Outcome
mean quality ratinge0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.4e0
Qualifier
3.3e0
Comparator
scotch mosse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chondrus crispus
Chondrus crispus · TaxonLuis Fernández García · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“irish moss had asignificantly higher mean quality rating (4.4) when compared with either salvia (3.7) or scotch moss (3.3)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1606–1728 · show in text ↑