Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of soil compaction levels on initial development of safflower genotypes (Carthamus tinctorius). The experimental design was 2 × 2 × 6, composed of two sowing seasons (May and June 2017), two genotypes (IMA-2103 and IMA-4409) and six levels of soil density (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 g cm-3), with three replicates. After 30 days of planting, percentage of emergence, emergence speed index, mean time of emergence and mean speed of emergence were analyzed. Among the morphological characteristics, plant height, stem diameter, root length, shoot and root fresh mass, shoot dry mass and number of healthy and wilted leaves were evaluated. The compaction states did not significantly interfere in the emergence of the safflower seedlings that were sown in the uncompacted surface layer. As soil compaction increased, root length, shoot fresh mass, shoot dry mass and root fresh mass were reduced in both genotypes. Soil density considered critical to safflower root growth was 1.3 g cm-3. The IMA-4409 genotype, in relation to IMA-2103, was more tolerant to soil compaction levels.
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
Compaction did not significantly affect seedling emergence when the surface layer was uncompacted.
- Taxon
- safflower
Carthamus tinctoriuse0 - Treatment
- compaction statese0
- Outcome
- emergencee0
- Direction
- did not significantly interferee0
- Qualifier
- uncompacted surface layere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The compaction states did not significantly interfere in the emergence of the safflower seedlings that were sown in the uncompacted surface layer”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing soil compaction reduced root length in both genotypes.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriust0
- Treatment
- soil compactione0
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- both genotypese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As soil compaction increased, root length, shoot fresh mass, shoot dry mass and root fresh mass were reduced in both genotypes”
t0“Safflower”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing soil compaction reduced shoot fresh and dry mass and root fresh mass in both genotypes.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriust0
- Treatment
- soil compactione0
- Outcome
- shoot fresh mass, shoot dry mass and root fresh masse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- both genotypese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As soil compaction increased, root length, shoot fresh mass, shoot dry mass and root fresh mass were reduced in both genotypes”
t0“Safflower”
Claim · model-written summary
The critical soil density for safflower root growth was 1.3 g cm-3.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriuse0
- Outcome
- root growthe0
- Value
- 1.3 g cm-3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil density considered critical to safflower root growth was 1.3 g cm-3”
Claim · model-written summary
IMA-4409 was more tolerant of soil compaction than IMA-2103.
- Taxon
- safflowerCarthamus tinctoriust0
- Material
- IMA-4409e0
- Outcome
- tolerant to soil compaction levelse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- IMA-2103e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The IMA-4409 genotype, in relation to IMA-2103, was more tolerant to soil compaction levels”
t0“Safflower”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · growth · Carthamus tinctorius (safflower)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.