Abstract
【Objective 】The effects of integration of irrigation and fertilization(drip fertigation) on growth, fiber yield and quality were studied by using a field experiment to investigate utilization properties of water and fertilizer for kenaf, in order to provide references for high- yield and high- efficient cultivation of kenaf. 【 Method 】 Hybrid kenaf(Hibiscus cannabinus L.) cultivar Hongyou 2 was used as material, 6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment. Three treatments T31,T2 and T3took 100% irrigation(12.947 m) with 100%, 75% and50% fertilization, respectively; treatments T4, T5 and T6took 80% irrigation with 100%, 75% and 50% fertilization,respectively; CK took 100% irrigation(16.183 m3) using furrow irrigation and 100 % fertilization( 264.00 kg N/ha,88. 04 kg P2O5/ ha, 176. 09 kg K2 O / ha) using broadcast. 【 Result 】 The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf, the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively. Out of six drip fertigation treatments, treatment T1 presented the best comprehensive effect, and followed by T5 and T2.Although the plant height, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density of treatment T1 showed the highest, few significant differences were found as compared to treatment T5. The fiber strength of treatment T5 was higher than that of treatment T1 by using less irrigation and fertilizer. 【Conclusion 】As to drip fertigation of kenaf, treatment T5(80% irrigation :12.947 m3, and 75% fertilization:198.00 kg N/ha, 66.03 kg P2O5/ha, 132.07 kg K2O/ha) could obtain better waterand fertilizer-saving effects and should be recommended to apply in production.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Six drip fertigation treatments significantly improved kenaf growth and fiber quality compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenaf
Hibiscus cannabinust0 - Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- growth and fiber qualitye1
- Direction
- significantly improvee1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation significantly increased kenaf plant height by 13.2%-25.5% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- plant heighte2
- Direction
- significantly increasede2
- Value
- 13.2%-25.5%e2
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
e2“the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation significantly increased kenaf stem diameter by 0.7%-1.4% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- stem diametere2
- Direction
- significantly increasede2
- Value
- 0.7%-1.4%e2
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
e2“the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation significantly increased kenaf skin thickness by 10.6%-20.3% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- skin thicknesse2
- Direction
- significantly increasede2
- Value
- 10.6%-20.3%e2
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
e2“the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation significantly increased kenaf shoot dry mass by 12.5%-30.9% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- shoot dry masse2
- Direction
- significantly increasede2
- Value
- 12.5%-30.9%e2
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
e2“the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation significantly increased kenaf fiber yield by 15.1%-36.8% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- fiber yielde2
- Direction
- significantly increasede2
- Value
- 15.1%-36.8%e2
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
e2“the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip fertigation significantly increased kenaf linear density by 7.2%-30.7% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- drip fertigatione0
- Outcome
- linear densitye2
- Direction
- significantly increasede2
- Value
- 7.2%-30.7%e2
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e0“6 treatments of drip fertigation and CK were designed in field experiment”
e1“The results showed that, compared with CK, six treatments T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6could significantly improve the growth and fiber quality of kenaf”
e2“the plant height, stem diameter, skin thickness, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density were significantly increased by13.2%-25.5%, 0.7%-1.4%, 10.6%-20.3%, 12.5%-30.9%, 15.1%-36.8% and 7.2%-30.7%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T1 had the best comprehensive effect among the six drip fertigation treatments.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- treatment T1e3
- Outcome
- comprehensive effecte3
- Direction
- beste3
- Comparator
- six drip fertigation treatmentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e3“Out of six drip fertigation treatments, treatment T1 presented the best comprehensive effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T1 gave few significant differences from treatment T5 in plant height, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density, though T1 was highest.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- treatment T1e4
- Outcome
- plant height, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear densitye4
- Direction
- few significant differences were founde4
- Comparator
- treatment T5e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e4“Although the plant height, shoot dry mass, fiber yield and linear density of treatment T1 showed the highest, few significant differences were found as compared to treatment T5”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T5 gave higher fiber strength than treatment T1 while using less irrigation and fertilizer.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- less irrigation and fertilizere5
- Outcome
- fiber strengthe5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- treatment T1e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e5“The fiber strength of treatment T5 was higher than that of treatment T1 by using less irrigation and fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment T5 is recommended for drip fertigation of kenaf in production for water and fertilizer saving.
- Taxon
- kenafHibiscus cannabinust0
- Treatment
- treatment T5e6
- Outcome
- water and fertilizer-saving effectse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“quality of kenaf”
e6“treatment T5(80% irrigation :12.947 m3, and 75% fertilization:198.00 kg N/ha, 66.03 kg P2O5/ha, 132.07 kg K2O/ha) could obtain better waterand fertilizer-saving effects and should be recommended to apply in production”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: grain · Hibiscus cannabinus (kenaf)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
fertilization · quality: grain · Hibiscus cannabinus (kenaf)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →fertilization · growth · Hibiscus cannabinus (kenaf)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
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.