Paper · 2015 · Hubei nongye kexue

Application of GGR 6 on Cutting Propagation of Camellia sinensis Plug Seedling

Wang Xue-pin

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effects of plant growth regulator GGR 6 on cutting propagation of tea [Camellia sinensis(L.) O. Ktze.] plug seedling were studied by setting different treatment methods, treatment times and concentration of GGR6. The results showed that application of GGR6 growth regulator could increase the root rate and survival rate, promote the growth of root system and tea seeding. Slow soaking method was superior to quick dipping. Treatment of 50 mg / kg for 0.5 h was the optimal as the developed root system was better and the survival rate, stem diameter and seeding height was 86.33 %, 2.05 mm and167 mm, respectively.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GGR6 increased rooting and survival of tea plug seedlings.

Taxon
teae0
Treatment
GGR6 growth regulatore0
Outcome
root rate and survival ratee0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“application of GGR6 growth regulator could increase the root rate and survival rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 241–324 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GGR6 promoted root and seedling growth.

Taxon
teae0
Treatment
GGR 6t0
Outcome
growth of root system and tea seedinge0
Direction
promotee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“promote the growth of root system and tea seeding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–375 · show in text ↑
t0

“GGR 6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–20 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Slow soaking was superior to quick dipping for tea cutting propagation.

Taxon
Camellia sinensisCamellia sinensist0
Treatment
Slow soaking methode0
Outcome
superiore0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
quick dippinge0

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

Camellia sinensis
Camellia sinensis · TaxonAxelBoldt at en.wikipedia · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Slow soaking method was superior to quick dipping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 377–426 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia sinensis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment at 50 mg / kg for 0.5 h was optimal for root development.

Taxon
Camellia sinensisCamellia sinensist0
Treatment
50 mg / kg for 0.5 he0
Outcome
developed root systeme0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Camellia sinensis
Camellia sinensis · TaxonAxelBoldt at en.wikipedia · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treatment of 50 mg / kg for 0.5 h was the optimal as the developed root system was better”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 428–517 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia sinensis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The optimal treatment gave 86.33 % survival.

Taxon
Camellia sinensisCamellia sinensist0
Treatment
50 mg / kg for 0.5 he1
Outcome
survival ratee0
Value
86.33 %e0

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

Camellia sinensis
Camellia sinensis · TaxonAxelBoldt at en.wikipedia · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the survival rate, stem diameter and seeding height was 86.33 %, 2.05 mm and167 mm, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–618 · show in text ↑
e1

“Treatment of 50 mg / kg for 0.5 h”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 428–461 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia sinensis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The optimal treatment gave 2.05 mm stem diameter.

Taxon
Camellia sinensisCamellia sinensist0
Outcome
stem diametere0
Value
2.05 mme0

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

Camellia sinensis
Camellia sinensis · TaxonAxelBoldt at en.wikipedia · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the survival rate, stem diameter and seeding height was 86.33 %, 2.05 mm and167 mm, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–618 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia sinensis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–64 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The optimal treatment gave 167 mm seedling height.

Taxon
Camellia sinensisCamellia sinensist0
Outcome
seeding heighte0
Value
167 mme0

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

Camellia sinensis
Camellia sinensis · TaxonAxelBoldt at en.wikipedia · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the survival rate, stem diameter and seeding height was 86.33 %, 2.05 mm and167 mm, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–618 · show in text ↑
t0

“Camellia sinensis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 47–64 · show in text ↑

class · survival · Camellia sinensis (black tea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.