Paper · 2004 · Xi'nan nongye xuebao

Effect of rotational cropping and continuous cropping on yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco

J. Nguyen Van

13
claims
17
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Results of four years' crop rotation and continuous cropping location experiment of flue-cured tobacco showed that growth potential, yield, value of yield .average price and apparent quality of continuous cropping tobacco was worse than that of crop rotation tobacco. The percentage of yield, value of yield, average price and mid-higher grade tobacco of continuous croppingtobacco to crop rotation tobacco was 59.12%, 29.93%, 52.07%,50.6%, respectively. Results of aroma chemicals detecting showed that amount of aroma chemicals in rotation cropping tobacco was higher than that of crop continuous tobacco. Results of comparison of soil nutrients under two cropping system showed that content of available phosphorate and available potassium in the soil of continuous cropping was higher than that in the soil of crop rotadon. But the pH, content of organic matter, total potassium, available P, available Zn, CEC and changeable Mg in soil of crop rotation was higher than that soil of continuous cropping. The difference of total microbe amount in soils of two cropping system was not significant Compared to crop rotadon system, the disease percentage of tobacco black shank and tobacco brown spot increased after continuous cropping.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping tobacco had worse growth potential and apparent quality than rotation tobacco.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
growth potentiale0
Direction
worsee0
Comparator
crop rotation tobaccoe0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth potential, yield, value of yield .average price and apparent quality of continuous cropping tobacco was worse than that of crop rotation tobacco.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–267 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping tobacco had worse apparent quality than rotation tobacco.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
apparent qualitye0
Direction
worsee0
Comparator
crop rotation tobaccoe0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth potential, yield, value of yield .average price and apparent quality of continuous cropping tobacco was worse than that of crop rotation tobacco.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–267 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping yield was 59.12% of rotation yield.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
worsee1
Value
59.12%e0
Comparator
crop rotatione0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of yield, value of yield, average price and mid-higher grade tobacco of continuous croppingtobacco to crop rotation tobacco was 59.12%, 29.93%, 52.07%,50.6%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–454 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuous cropping tobacco was worse than that of crop rotation tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–266 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping yield value was 29.93% of rotation yield value.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
value of yielde0
Direction
worsee1
Value
29.93%e0
Comparator
crop rotatione0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of yield, value of yield, average price and mid-higher grade tobacco of continuous croppingtobacco to crop rotation tobacco was 59.12%, 29.93%, 52.07%,50.6%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–454 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuous cropping tobacco was worse than that of crop rotation tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–266 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping average price was 52.07% of rotation average price.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
average pricee0
Direction
worsee1
Value
52.07%e0
Comparator
crop rotatione0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of yield, value of yield, average price and mid-higher grade tobacco of continuous croppingtobacco to crop rotation tobacco was 59.12%, 29.93%, 52.07%,50.6%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–454 · show in text ↑
e1

“continuous cropping tobacco was worse than that of crop rotation tobacco”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 194–266 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping mid-higher grade tobacco was 50.6% of rotation tobacco.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
mid-higher grade tobaccoe0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Value
50.6%e0
Comparator
crop rotatione0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of yield, value of yield, average price and mid-higher grade tobacco of continuous croppingtobacco to crop rotation tobacco was 59.12%, 29.93%, 52.07%,50.6%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 268–454 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rotation tobacco had more aroma chemicals than continuous cropping tobacco.

Treatment
rotation croppinge0
Outcome
amount of aroma chemicalse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
crop continuous tobaccoe0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“amount of aroma chemicals in rotation cropping tobacco was higher than that of crop continuous tobacco.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 504–607 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping soil had higher available phosphorate and potassium than rotation soil.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
content of available phosphorate and available potassiume0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
crop rotadone0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“content of available phosphorate and available potassium in the soil of continuous cropping was higher than that in the soil of crop rotadon.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 686–827 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rotation soil had higher pH, organic matter and total potassium.

Treatment
crop rotatione0
Outcome
pH, content of organic matter, total potassiume0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
continuous croppinge0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“the pH, content of organic matter, total potassium, available P, available Zn, CEC and changeable Mg in soil of crop rotation was higher than that soil of continuous cropping.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–1007 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rotation soil had higher available P, available Zn and CEC.

Treatment
crop rotatione0
Outcome
available P, available Zn, CECe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
continuous croppinge0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“the pH, content of organic matter, total potassium, available P, available Zn, CEC and changeable Mg in soil of crop rotation was higher than that soil of continuous cropping.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–1007 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rotation soil had higher exchangeable Mg.

Treatment
crop rotatione0
Outcome
changeable Mge0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
continuous croppinge0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“the pH, content of organic matter, total potassium, available P, available Zn, CEC and changeable Mg in soil of crop rotation was higher than that soil of continuous cropping.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–1007 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Total soil microbe amount did not differ significantly between cropping systems.

Taxon
microbee0
Treatment
continuous croppinge1
Outcome
total microbe amount in soilse0
Comparator
crop rotadon systeme1

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The difference of total microbe amount in soils of two cropping system was not significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1098 · show in text ↑
e1

“Compared to crop rotadon system, the disease percentage of tobacco black shank and tobacco brown spot increased after continuous cropping.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1099–1237 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous cropping increased tobacco black shank and brown spot disease percentage relative to rotation.

Treatment
continuous croppinge0
Outcome
disease percentage of tobacco black shank and tobacco brown spote0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
crop rotadon systeme0

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

Nicotiana tabacum
Nicotiana tabacum · TaxonJom / Joachim Müllerchen · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Compared to crop rotadon system, the disease percentage of tobacco black shank and tobacco brown spot increased after continuous cropping.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1099–1237 · show in text ↑

rotation · quality: phytochemicals · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

rotation · organism · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

rotation · quality: general · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

rotation · growth · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

rotation · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 16 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.