Abstract
To assess the effects of a new integrated nutrient management protocol on yield and cut stem quality, root morphology, N accumulation, nitrogen utilization efficiency (NUE), and P content in tissue, a biennial (2011 and 2012) chrysanthemum cut flower cultivation was carried out. In both years, two nutrition management (CNM: conventional NM and INM: integrated NM) treatments and two Dendranthema grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitamura cultivar (“White CV1” and “Yellow CV2”) treatments were compared. The treatments were arranged in a split-plot design with three replicates. CNM was fertilized using a recommended dose fertilization of mineral NPK; INM treatment was fertilized using a half dose (50%) of CNM plus a combined usage of N organic fertilizer, seaweed extract (Ascophyllum nodosum), and microrganism consortium (Glomus sp. and Bacillus sp.). Yield at harvest (+19%), number of leaves (+33%), leaf area (+46%), number of flower heads (+27%), and total aboveground dry weight (+40%) were significantly increased by the INM application compared to the control. In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%). The greatest N accumulation, in both years, was registered by INM treatment at harvest: +94% in 2011 and +55% in 2012. Differences in the NM were evident in the NUE, which was highest in CNM (on average 162) compared to INM (on average 142). In both years the P content in above-ground chrysanthemum tissues was in the order of head > leaves > stems, which was maintained in both INM and CNM treatments. A higher yield (138 stems m−2) was obtained in “CV2 Yellow” compared to “CV1 White” (120 stems m−2). Based on our findings, applying INM to chrysanthemum improves yield, cut flower quality, and plant nutrient uptake, in an agro–environmentally sustainable way. A basic economic analysis on fertilizers, cost gross production, and takings difference obtained, was carried out.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
INM significantly increased Yield at harvest by +19% relative to control.
- Treatment
- INM applicatione0
- Outcome
- Yield at harveste0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- +19%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield at harvest (+19%), number of leaves (+33%), leaf area (+46%), number of flower heads (+27%), and total aboveground dry weight (+40%) were significantly increased by the INM application compared to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
INM significantly increased number of leaves by +33% relative to control.
- Treatment
- INM applicatione0
- Outcome
- number of leavese0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- +33%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield at harvest (+19%), number of leaves (+33%), leaf area (+46%), number of flower heads (+27%), and total aboveground dry weight (+40%) were significantly increased by the INM application compared to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
INM significantly increased leaf area by +46% relative to control.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield at harvest (+19%), number of leaves (+33%), leaf area (+46%), number of flower heads (+27%), and total aboveground dry weight (+40%) were significantly increased by the INM application compared to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
INM significantly increased number of flower heads by +27% relative to control.
- Treatment
- INM applicatione0
- Outcome
- number of flower headse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- +27%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield at harvest (+19%), number of leaves (+33%), leaf area (+46%), number of flower heads (+27%), and total aboveground dry weight (+40%) were significantly increased by the INM application compared to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
INM significantly increased total aboveground dry weight by +40% relative to control.
- Treatment
- INM applicatione0
- Outcome
- total aboveground dry weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- +40%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yield at harvest (+19%), number of leaves (+33%), leaf area (+46%), number of flower heads (+27%), and total aboveground dry weight (+40%) were significantly increased by the INM application compared to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root length by +174%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root volume by +167%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root projected area by +166%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root surface area by +165%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root tips by +175%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root forks by +285%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased root crossings by +464%.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“In terms of the root system, the increase was evident in terms of length (+174%), volume (+167%), projected area (+166%), and surface area (+165%), tips (+175%), forks (+285%), and crossings (+464%).”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased N accumulation at harvest by 94% in 2011.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The greatest N accumulation, in both years, was registered by INM treatment at harvest: +94% in 2011 and +55% in 2012.”
Claim · model-written summary
INM increased N accumulation at harvest by 55% in 2012.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“The greatest N accumulation, in both years, was registered by INM treatment at harvest: +94% in 2011 and +55% in 2012.”
Claim · model-written summary
NUE was highest under CNM, averaging 162 versus 142 under INM.
- Treatment
- CNMe0
- Outcome
- NUEe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- on average 162e0
- Qualifier
- on average 142e0
- Comparator
- INMe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“NUE, which was highest in CNM (on average 162) compared to INM (on average 142)”
Claim · model-written summary
P content was greatest in heads, then leaves, then stems under both nutrient regimes.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemum
.jpeg?width=60)
Chrysanthemume0 - Organ / stage
- above-ground chrysanthemum tissuese0
- Outcome
- P contente0
- Direction
- head > leaves > stemse0
- Qualifier
- both INM and CNM treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpeg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“P content in above-ground chrysanthemum tissues was in the order of head > leaves > stems, which was maintained in both INM and CNM treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
CV2 Yellow yielded 138 stems per square meter versus 120 for CV1 White.
- Material
- CV2 Yellowe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 138 stems m−2e0
- Qualifier
- 120 stems m−2e0
- Comparator
- CV1 Whitee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“A higher yield (138 stems m−2) was obtained in “CV2 Yellow” compared to “CV1 White” (120 stems m−2).”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude INM improves chrysanthemum yield, cut flower quality, and nutrient uptake.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemume0
- Treatment
- applying INMe0
- Outcome
- improves yield, cut flower quality, and plant nutrient uptakee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applying INM to chrysanthemum improves yield, cut flower quality, and plant nutrient uptake, in an agro–environmentally sustainable way”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: content · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →fertilization · yield · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →fertilization · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 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.