Abstract
1) This study was carried out to examine the effect of shading with marsh-reed screens, which was applied at different stages of flower development, on retardation of flowering, using three chrysanthemum varieties, Okayamaheiwa, Matsunohomare and Shintoa, and to observe the combined effect of reduced light intensity and spray of the plant regulators (NAA and gibberellin) on growth and flowering of Okayamaheiwa.2) Growth and flowering were retarded in Okayamaheiwa variety when the reduced light intensity of 25-30% was given prior to flower bud differentiation. However, no effect on growth was observed when the reduced light was given after flower bud differentiation, and the later the treatment was begun the smaller the effect on the development of flower buds. And, there was no effect of the treatment begun five days after budding on retardation of flowering. Different results were obtained in the varieties, Matsunohomare and Shintoa. The flower bud development was retarded in them even if the treatments were started after the initiation of flower buds.3) Growth and flowering were retarded heavily in the variety Okayamaheiwa under the very reduced light intensity of 6-7%, while no effect was observed when the treatment was started 15 days after budding.4) Application of NAA (50ppm), gibberellin (50 ppm) or combined solution of NAA (50ppm) and gibberellin (50ppm) was made under different light intensities. NAA or the combined solution showed greater effect on flowering retardation under the reduced light intensity of 25-30%, while gibberellin alone gave no influence in spite of the reduced light intensity.5) Growth was promoted, but budding received no influence under the reduced light intensity of 33-38%, even when the treatment was started prior to the flower bud initiation. Under this light intensity, the foliar spray of NAA or the combined solution of NAA and gibberellin resulted in a remarkable inhibitory influence on flower bud development. Application of gibberellin showed a slight promotion of budding under the natural light intensity, while it showed no effect under the reduced light intensity.6) No marked effect was obtained by the spray of the plant regulators on the rate of growth.7) The number of ray flowers was decreased under the reduced light intensity.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
25-30% light before bud differentiation retarded Okayamaheiwa growth.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemum
.jpeg?width=60)
Chrysanthemumt0 - Material
- Okayamaheiwae0
- Treatment
- reduced light intensity of 25-30%e0
- Outcome
- Growthe0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpeg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Growth and flowering were retarded in Okayamaheiwa variety when the reduced light intensity of 25-30% was given prior to flower bud differentiation”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
25-30% light before bud differentiation retarded Okayamaheiwa flowering.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Material
- Okayamaheiwae0
- Treatment
- reduced light intensity of 25-30%e0
- Outcome
- floweringe0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth and flowering were retarded in Okayamaheiwa variety when the reduced light intensity of 25-30% was given prior to flower bud differentiation”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced light after bud differentiation did not affect growth.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- reduced lighte0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effect on growth was observed when the reduced light was given after flower bud differentiation”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Later shading onset had a smaller effect on bud development.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- treatmente0
- Outcome
- development of flower budse0
- Direction
- smallere0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the later the treatment was begun the smaller the effect on the development of flower buds”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading started five days after budding did not retard flowering.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- treatment begun five days after buddinge0
- Outcome
- retardation of floweringe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no effect of the treatment begun five days after budding on retardation of flowering”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Matsunohomare bud development was retarded by shading after initiation.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- flower bud developmente0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The flower bud development was retarded in them even if the treatments were started after the initiation of flower buds”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Shintoa bud development was retarded by shading after initiation.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- flower bud developmente0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The flower bud development was retarded in them even if the treatments were started after the initiation of flower buds”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
6-7% light heavily retarded Okayamaheiwa growth.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Material
- Okayamaheiwae0
- Treatment
- very reduced light intensity of 6-7%e0
- Outcome
- Growthe0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth and flowering were retarded heavily in the variety Okayamaheiwa under the very reduced light intensity of 6-7%”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
6-7% light heavily retarded Okayamaheiwa flowering.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Material
- Okayamaheiwae0
- Treatment
- very reduced light intensity of 6-7%e0
- Outcome
- floweringe0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth and flowering were retarded heavily in the variety Okayamaheiwa under the very reduced light intensity of 6-7%”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading begun 15 days after budding had no effect.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- treatment was started 15 days after buddinge0
- Outcome
- effecte0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effect was observed when the treatment was started 15 days after budding”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA had greater flowering delay under 25-30% light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- NAAe0
- Outcome
- flowering retardatione0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NAA or the combined solution showed greater effect on flowering retardation under the reduced light intensity of 25-30%”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA plus gibberellin had greater flowering delay under 25-30% light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- combined solutione0
- Outcome
- flowering retardatione0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NAA or the combined solution showed greater effect on flowering retardation under the reduced light intensity of 25-30%”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellin alone did not affect flowering under reduced light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- gibberelline0
- Outcome
- no influencee0
- Direction
- no influencee0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gibberellin alone gave no influence in spite of the reduced light intensity”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
33-38% light promoted growth.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- reduced light intensity of 33-38%e0
- Outcome
- Growthe0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth was promoted, but budding received no influence under the reduced light intensity of 33-38%”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
33-38% light did not affect budding.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- reduced light intensity of 33-38%e0
- Outcome
- buddinge0
- Direction
- no influencee0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth was promoted, but budding received no influence under the reduced light intensity of 33-38%”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA inhibited bud development under 33-38% light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- foliar spray of NAAe0
- Outcome
- flower bud developmente0
- Direction
- inhibitorye0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar spray of NAA or the combined solution of NAA and gibberellin resulted in a remarkable inhibitory influence on flower bud development”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA plus gibberellin inhibited bud development under 33-38% light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- combined solution of NAA and gibberelline0
- Outcome
- flower bud developmente0
- Direction
- inhibitorye0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the foliar spray of NAA or the combined solution of NAA and gibberellin resulted in a remarkable inhibitory influence on flower bud development”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellin slightly promoted budding in natural light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- gibberelline0
- Outcome
- buddinge0
- Direction
- promotione0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of gibberellin showed a slight promotion of budding under the natural light intensity”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellin did not affect budding under reduced light.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- gibberelline1
- Outcome
- effecte0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it showed no effect under the reduced light intensity”
e1“Application of gibberellin showed a slight promotion of budding under the natural light intensity”
t0“chrysanthemum”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced light decreased ray flower number.
- Taxon
- chrysanthemumChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- reduced light intensitye0
- Outcome
- number of ray flowerse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedMaterialComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of ray flowers was decreased under the reduced light intensity”
t0“chrysanthemum”
The same questions in other papers
1-naphthaleneacetic acid · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →1-naphthaleneacetic acid · phenology · ChrysanthemumResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- negative
light · phenology · ChrysanthemumResults differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →class · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →application · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →light · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 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.