Paper · 2013 · International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production

Effect of nan- silver and sucrose on vase life of Tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa cv. peril) cut flowers

M. Asgari; Mohammad Hossein Azimi; Z. Hamzehi; et al.

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

To investigate the effects of nano- silver and sucrose treatments on vase life and quality of Peril varieties tuberose cut flower, this research was done in the Horticulture laboratory of Agriculture Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Abhar. The three replications were arranged in a factorial based on randomized complete design (RCD), included two experiments. Vase protective solutions were sucrose at (0, 0.5% and 1%) andnano-silver (NS)at (0.5, 10 and 15 ppm). The evaluated characteristics including to the flower vase life and quality, electrolyte leakage, relative water content, chlorophyll content, the number of flower opening, solution uptake and florets height. Analysis of variance showed that sucrose and nano-silver treatments were significant in 1% level to flower vase life and quality, electrolyte leakage and florets height. Also were significant in 5% level torelative water content and chlorophyll content traits. In this study the most chlorophyll content was related to sucrose 5% and nano-silver 5 ppm also the lowest electrolyte leakage was related to nanosilver 15 ppm, whereas sucrose 1% had the most flower vase life and quality, relative water content and florets height.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sucrose and nano-silver significantly affected vase life and quality, electrolyte leakage, and floret height.

Taxon
TuberoseAgave amicat0
Treatment
sucrose and nano-silver treatmentse0
Outcome
flower vase life and quality, electrolyte leakage and florets heighte0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Agave amica
Agave amica · TaxonSKsiddhartthan · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Tuberose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“sucrose and nano-silver treatments were significant in 1% level to flower vase life and quality, electrolyte leakage and florets height”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 707–842 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sucrose and nano-silver significantly affected relative water and chlorophyll content.

Taxon
TuberoseAgave amicat0
Treatment
sucrose and nano-silver treatmentse1
Outcome
relative water content and chlorophyll contente0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Agave amica
Agave amica · TaxonSKsiddhartthan · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Tuberose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Also were significant in 5% level torelative water content and chlorophyll content traits.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–934 · show in text ↑
e1

“sucrose and nano-silver treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 707–741 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sucrose 5% with nano-silver 5 ppm yielded the most chlorophyll content.

Taxon
TuberoseAgave amicat0
Treatment
sucrose 5% and nano-silver 5 ppme0
Outcome
chlorophyll contente0
Direction
moste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Agave amica
Agave amica · TaxonSKsiddhartthan · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Tuberose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“the most chlorophyll content was related to sucrose 5% and nano-silver 5 ppm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1025 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nano-silver 15 ppm yielded the lowest electrolyte leakage.

Taxon
TuberoseAgave amicat0
Treatment
nanosilver 15 ppme0
Outcome
electrolyte leakagee0
Direction
loweste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Agave amica
Agave amica · TaxonSKsiddhartthan · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Tuberose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“the lowest electrolyte leakage was related to nanosilver 15 ppm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1031–1094 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sucrose 1% yielded the most vase life and quality, relative water content, and floret height.

Taxon
TuberoseAgave amicat0
Treatment
sucrose 1%e0
Outcome
flower vase life and quality, relative water content and florets heighte0
Direction
moste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Agave amica
Agave amica · TaxonSKsiddhartthan · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Tuberose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“sucrose 1% had the most flower vase life and quality, relative water content and florets height”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1104–1199 · show in text ↑

sucrose · physiology: water · Agave amica (tuberose)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.