Abstract
Inadequate cultivation practices of carrots often result in lower yields. Proper soil fertilization combined with a good choice of variety can contribute to both qualitative and quantitative optimization of carrot production. Although several works have been carried out on carrots, there is still a lack of information regarding the influence of the types and doses of fertilizers applied in the field by farmers in Cameroon on yield and post-harvest shelf-life of the most frequently grown carrot varieties. This study aimed to determine the interactions between carrot variety and fertilization on the yield attributes and post-harvest conservation of carrots. Nine treatments involving individual and combined applications of chemical fertilizer (NPK: 20-10-10) and chicken manure were tested on five carrot varieties (New Kuroda, Pamela+, Madona, Amazonia, and Vanessa F1) in a split-split plot design with three replications. Yield variables were measured after 110 days of experimentation, followed by measurement of post-harvest shelf-life for thirty days. The best yield was obtained with 10 t ha−1 chicken manure. The variety Pamela+ was the most productive. This fertilizer/variety combination was identified as the best interaction for achieving optimal performance. The maximum storage time observed was 20 days. Application of chicken manure at 5 t ha−1 and 10 t ha−1 and the variety Vanessa F1 were associated with low percentages of deterioration. The best shelf-life was achieved with the variety Vanessa F1 fertilized with 5 t ha−1 of chicken manure, which showed the lowest deterioration (8.33% after 20 days of storage).
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure at 10 t ha−1 produced the best carrot yield.
- Taxon
- carrot
Daucus carotat0 - Treatment
- 10 t ha−1 chicken manuree0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best yield was obtained with 10 t ha−1 chicken manure.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pamela+ was the most productive carrot variety.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Material
- Pamela+e0
- Outcome
- productivee0
- Direction
- moste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The variety Pamela+ was the most productive.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pamela+ with 10 t ha−1 chicken manure was the best yield combination.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Material
- Pamela+e0
- Treatment
- 10 t ha−1 chicken manuree0
- Outcome
- optimal performancee0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best yield was obtained with 10 t ha−1 chicken manure. The variety Pamela+ was the most productive. This fertilizer/variety combination was identified as the best interaction for achieving optimal performance.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum carrot storage time was 20 days.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Outcome
- storage timee0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 20 dayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum storage time observed was 20 days.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure at 5 t ha−1 was associated with low deterioration.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Treatment
- chicken manure at 5 t ha−1e0
- Outcome
- percentages of deterioratione0
- Direction
- lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of chicken manure at 5 t ha−1 and 10 t ha−1 and the variety Vanessa F1 were associated with low percentages of deterioration.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure at 10 t ha−1 was associated with low deterioration.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Treatment
- 10 t ha−1e0
- Outcome
- percentages of deterioratione0
- Direction
- lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of chicken manure at 5 t ha−1 and 10 t ha−1 and the variety Vanessa F1 were associated with low percentages of deterioration.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vanessa F1 was associated with low deterioration.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Material
- Vanessa F1e0
- Outcome
- percentages of deterioratione0
- Direction
- lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of chicken manure at 5 t ha−1 and 10 t ha−1 and the variety Vanessa F1 were associated with low percentages of deterioration.”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vanessa F1 with 5 t ha−1 chicken manure had the best shelf life and 8.33% deterioration after 20 days.
- Taxon
- carrotDaucus carotat0
- Material
- Vanessa F1e0
- Treatment
- 5 t ha−1 of chicken manuree0
- Outcome
- deterioratione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 8.33%e0
- Qualifier
- after 20 days of storagee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best shelf-life was achieved with the variety Vanessa F1 fertilized with 5 t ha−1 of chicken manure, which showed the lowest deterioration (8.33% after 20 days of storage).”
t0“carrot (Daucus carota L.)”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Daucus carota (carrot)Results differ
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
117 papers more in this group
See all 121 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.