Paper · 2018 · South African Journal of Plant and Soil

Effect of cultivar and cutting orientation at planting on sweet potato growth and yield in the Verulam area, South Africa

Zanele Pakkies; Corlina M van Jaarsveld; Sydney Mavengahama

9
claims
21
verbatim quotes
3
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Sweet potato production is affected by agronomical practices such as orientation of cuttings at planting and cultivar selection. Thus a study was conducted to test the effect of two cutting orientations at planting (horizontal and vertical) for four sweet potato cultivars (‘Ndou’, ‘Blesbok’, ‘Monate’ and ‘199062.1’) on vine length and yield in the Verulam area of northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The experiment was laid out in a randomised complete block design with four replications per treatment. Vine length was measured for five randomly selected plants per plot at 3, 6, 9 and 12 weeks after planting. At 5 months after planting, aboveground fresh biomass (ABM), marketable yield (MY) (101–1 200 g), non-marketable yield (<100 g), total storage root yield (TSRY) and harvest index (HI) were determined. Vine length was not significantly affected by cultivar or cutting orientation, but was shortest for cultivars ‘199062.1’ and ‘Blesbok’. Cultivars ‘199062.1’ and ‘Blesbok’ had the highest ABM, MY and TSRY. Horizontal planting of cuttings showed consistently higher values than vertical planting for most yield parameters measured with significant (p < 0.05) differences in TSRY and HI observed.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Vine length was not significantly affected by cultivar.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Treatment
cultivare0
Outcome
Vine lengthe0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Vine length was not significantly affected by cultivar or cutting orientation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–894 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Vine length was not significantly affected by cutting orientation.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Treatment
cutting orientatione0
Outcome
Vine lengthe0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Vine length was not significantly affected by cultivar or cutting orientation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–894 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Vine length was shortest for cultivar 199062.1.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Material
‘199062.1’e0
Outcome
Vine lengthe1
Direction
shorteste0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but was shortest for cultivars ‘199062.1’ and ‘Blesbok’.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–952 · show in text ↑
e1

“Vine length was not significantly affected by cultivar or cutting orientation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–894 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Vine length was shortest for cultivar Blesbok.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Material
‘Blesbok’e0
Outcome
Vine lengthe1
Direction
shorteste0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but was shortest for cultivars ‘199062.1’ and ‘Blesbok’.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–952 · show in text ↑
e1

“Vine length was not significantly affected by cultivar or cutting orientation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 817–894 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar 199062.1 had the highest aboveground fresh biomass, marketable yield, and total storage root yield.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Material
‘199062.1’e0
Outcome
ABM, MY and TSRYe0
Direction
higheste0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars ‘199062.1’ and ‘Blesbok’ had the highest ABM, MY and TSRY.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–1021 · show in text ↑
e1

“aboveground fresh biomass (ABM), marketable yield (MY) (101–1 200 g), non-marketable yield (<100 g), total storage root yield (TSRY) and harvest index (HI)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 644–799 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivar Blesbok had the highest aboveground fresh biomass, marketable yield, and total storage root yield.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Material
‘Blesbok’e0
Outcome
ABM, MY and TSRYe0
Direction
higheste0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars ‘199062.1’ and ‘Blesbok’ had the highest ABM, MY and TSRY.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–1021 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Horizontal cuttings had higher values than vertical cuttings for most measured yield parameters.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Treatment
Horizontal planting of cuttingse0
Outcome
most yield parameterse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
vertical plantinge0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Horizontal planting of cuttings showed consistently higher values than vertical planting for most yield parameters measured with significant (p < 0.05) differences in TSRY and HI observed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1210 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Horizontal and vertical planting differed significantly in total storage root yield, favoring horizontal planting.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Treatment
Horizontal planting of cuttingse0
Outcome
TSRYe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
vertical plantinge0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Horizontal planting of cuttings showed consistently higher values than vertical planting for most yield parameters measured with significant (p < 0.05) differences in TSRY and HI observed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1210 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Horizontal and vertical planting differed significantly in harvest index, favoring horizontal planting.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatast0
Treatment
Horizontal planting of cuttingse0
Outcome
HIe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
vertical plantinge0

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

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Horizontal planting of cuttings showed consistently higher values than vertical planting for most yield parameters measured with significant (p < 0.05) differences in TSRY and HI observed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1210 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–70 · show in text ↑

pruning · growth · Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 6 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 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.