Abstract
Abstract Chrysanthemum X morifolium Ramat. cvs. Yellow Paragon and Copper Ann, when grown as pot plants, produced more flowering stem breaks and greater flower weight in crops planted in January and February (spring) than in those grown under similar greenhouse conditions in October and November (fall). Spring crops also showed longer vegetative dry weight, shorter stem breaks, and earlier flower development. Supplemental high-pressure sodium (HPS) irradiation resulted in a larger increase in flower weight and number of flowering breaks in the fall than in the spring. Flower development was hastened by HPS irradiation only in the fall. Split-night temperatures did not delay flowering and resulted in a relatively small reduction in flower weight and number of flowering breaks in the spring. Unacceptable delays and degradation of flower quality occurred with this treatment in the fall and HPS was only partly successful in restoring acceptable quality and time to harvest.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Spring crops produced more flowering stem breaks and greater flower weight than fall crops.
- Taxon
- Chrysanthemum X morifolium
Chrysanthemum ×morifoliume0 - Material
- Yellow Paragon and Copper Anne0
- Outcome
- flowering stem breaks and greater flower weighte0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- October and November (fall)e0
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chrysanthemum X morifolium Ramat. cvs. Yellow Paragon and Copper Ann, when grown as pot plants, produced more flowering stem breaks and greater flower weight in crops planted in January and February (spring) than in those grown under similar greenhouse conditions in October and November (fall).”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring crops had longer vegetative dry weight, shorter stem breaks and earlier flower development.
- Taxon
- Chrysanthemums
.jpeg?width=60)
Chrysanthemumt0 - Outcome
- vegetative dry weight, shorter stem breaks, and earlier flower developmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpeg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Spring crops also showed longer vegetative dry weight, shorter stem breaks, and earlier flower development.”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS irradiation produced a larger increase in flower weight and flowering breaks in fall than spring.
- Taxon
- ChrysanthemumsChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- Supplemental high-pressure sodium (HPS) irradiatione0
- Outcome
- flower weight and number of flowering breakse0
- Direction
- larger increasee0
- Comparator
- springe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Supplemental high-pressure sodium (HPS) irradiation resulted in a larger increase in flower weight and number of flowering breaks in the fall than in the spring.”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS irradiation hastened flower development only in fall crops.
- Taxon
- ChrysanthemumsChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- HPS irradiatione0
- Outcome
- Flower developmente0
- Direction
- hastenede0
- Qualifier
- only in the falle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flower development was hastened by HPS irradiation only in the fall.”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
Claim · model-written summary
Split-night temperatures did not delay flowering.
- Taxon
- ChrysanthemumsChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- Split-night temperaturese0
- Outcome
- floweringe0
- Direction
- did not delaye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Split-night temperatures did not delay flowering”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
Claim · model-written summary
Split-night temperatures slightly reduced flower weight and flowering breaks in spring.
- Taxon
- ChrysanthemumsChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- Split-night temperaturese0
- Outcome
- flower weight and number of flowering breakse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- in the springe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Split-night temperatures did not delay flowering and resulted in a relatively small reduction in flower weight and number of flowering breaks in the spring.”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
Claim · model-written summary
Split-night temperatures caused unacceptable flowering delays and lower flower quality in fall crops.
- Taxon
- ChrysanthemumsChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- Split-night temperaturese1
- Outcome
- flower qualitye0
- Direction
- degradatione0
- Qualifier
- in the falle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Unacceptable delays and degradation of flower quality occurred with this treatment in the fall”
e1“Split-night temperatures did not delay flowering”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
Claim · model-written summary
HPS irradiation only partly restored acceptable quality and harvest timing after split-night temperature treatment in fall.
- Taxon
- ChrysanthemumsChrysanthemumt0
- Treatment
- HPSe0
- Outcome
- acceptable quality and time to harveste0
- Direction
- partly successful in restoringe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HPS was only partly successful in restoring acceptable quality and time to harvest.”
t0“Pot Chrysanthemums”
The same questions in other papers
sodium atom · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →radiation · phenology · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →radiation · growth · ChrysanthemumPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.