Abstract
The selection of varieties is extremely important for decreasing fertilizer consumption. However, little attention is devoted to assessing the effectiveness of row spacing in tandem with types of varieties of pea on root development in the context of limited nutrition. As essential knowledge in this area is lacking, a study was conducted with two objectives using an ordinal regression model. (i): To determine whether qualitative variables (cultivar, fertilization, and row spacing) or quantitative variables (root parameters) affect the root dry mass density, and (ii): To assess the variation in root architecture of two pea cultivars (fodder vs. edible type) grown under different P supply levels (0, 45, and 90 kg P2O5) and row spacing (narrow—15 cm—and wide—30 cm). The ordinal regression model showed that row spacing and cultivar type are meaningful predictors of root dry mass density (RDMD). The root dry mass density increased at wider row spacing in the fodder pea cultivar. As root surface area density (RSAD) and SRL-specific root length (SRL) most accurately describe root mass, it was concluded that the cultivar type and row spacing are crucial factors for increasing root plasticity, which can improve soil utilization.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Row spacing predicts root dry mass density.
- Taxon
- Pea
Lathyrus oleraceust0 - Treatment
- row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root dry mass density (RDMD)e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“row spacing and cultivar type are meaningful predictors of root dry mass density (RDMD)”
t0“Pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar type predicts root dry mass density.
- Taxon
- PeaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Material
- cultivar typee0
- Outcome
- root dry mass density (RDMD)e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“row spacing and cultivar type are meaningful predictors of root dry mass density (RDMD)”
t0“Pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Wider row spacing increased root dry mass density in the fodder pea cultivar.
- Taxon
- PeaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Material
- fodder pea cultivare0
- Treatment
- wider row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root dry mass densitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root dry mass density increased at wider row spacing in the fodder pea cultivar”
t0“Pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Root surface area density and specific root length most accurately described root mass.
- Taxon
- PeaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Outcome
- root masse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root surface area density (RSAD) and SRL-specific root length (SRL) most accurately describe root mass”
t0“Pea”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that cultivar type and row spacing are crucial to increasing root plasticity and improving soil use.
- Taxon
- PeaLathyrus oleraceust0
- Material
- cultivar typee0
- Treatment
- row spacinge0
- Outcome
- increasing root plasticitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was concluded that the cultivar type and row spacing are crucial factors for increasing root plasticity, which can improve soil utilization”
t0“Pea”
The same questions in other papers
density · growth · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.