Paper · 2019 · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science

Effects of intercropping with post-grafting generation of Impatiens balsamina on potassium uptake of grape seedlings under cadmium stress

Liu Yang; Ting Wang; Dan Xia; et al.

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Grape seedlings and post-grafting generation of Impatiens balsamina were used as materials to intercrop for exploring the effects of the potassium uptake of grape seedling under the stress of cadmium. There were five treatments in this experiment including one grape seedling monoculture and four intercropping treatments. According to the results, the testing indicated that the content of total potassium in leaf, stem and root of seedling and soil available potassium in grape seedling monoculture were all higher than that in intercropping treatments, and the content was all ranked as: grape seedling intercropping with PSSG < intercropping with PSDG < intercropping with PSG < intercropping with UG < grape seedling monoculture. In terms of soil available potassium, the content had no significant difference when grape seedling intercropped with PSSG, PSDG and PSG. So while intercropping with Impatiens balsamina of post-grafting generation, the total potassium and soil available content could not increase. On the contrary, it decreased. Therefore, intercropping treatment did not play a positive role in potassium uptake and had no significant promoting effects on plant growth and development.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropped grape seedlings had lower leaf, stem and root total potassium than monoculture.

Taxon
grape seedlinge0
Treatment
intercropping treatmentse0
Outcome
content of total potassium in leaf, stem and roote0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
grape seedling monoculturee0

Verbatim

e0

“the content of total potassium in leaf, stem and root of seedling and soil available potassium in grape seedling monoculture were all higher than that in intercropping treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 385–563 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil available potassium was lower in intercropping than grape monoculture.

Taxon
grape seedlinge0
Treatment
intercropping treatmentse0
Outcome
soil available potassiume0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
grape seedling monoculturee0

Verbatim

e0

“the content of total potassium in leaf, stem and root of seedling and soil available potassium in grape seedling monoculture were all higher than that in intercropping treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 385–563 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium content ranked PSSG below PSDG below PSG below UG below monoculture.

Taxon
grape seedlinge0
Outcome
contente0
Qualifier
PSSG < intercropping with PSDG < intercropping with PSG < intercropping with UG < grape seedling monoculturee0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“the content was all ranked as: grape seedling intercropping with PSSG < intercropping with PSDG < intercropping with PSG < intercropping with UG < grape seedling monoculture.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 569–743 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil available potassium did not differ significantly among PSSG, PSDG and PSG intercropping.

Taxon
grape seedlinge0
Treatment
intercropped with PSSG, PSDG and PSGe0
Outcome
contente0
Direction
no significant differencee0

Verbatim

e0

“the content had no significant difference when grape seedling intercropped with PSSG, PSDG and PSG.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 782–881 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping did not significantly promote grape growth and development.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
intercropping treatmente0
Outcome
plant growth and developmente0
Direction
had no significant promoting effectse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“intercropping treatment did not play a positive role in potassium uptake and had no significant promoting effects on plant growth and development.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1068–1214 · show in text ↑
t0

“grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 101–106 · show in text ↑

intercropping · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

intercropping · growth · VitisPositive and negative results

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

intercropping · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results

16 papers: 9 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 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.