Abstract
The production of tuberous roots is usually reduced by vigorous vegetative growth because of the competition for resource between the vegetative parts and reproductive organs. In this study, we conducted root pruning to examine the vigorous vegetative growth by regulating root growth, subsequently limiting vegetative growth and improving tuber yield. Compared with the control, stem, tuber, and root biomasses were all improved, whereas both flower and leaf biomasses were increased. Tuber biomass was improved by 23.48% to 50.32%, with the largest tuber biomass obtained at root cutting radius 4/5 R. With delayed root cutting time, tuber and root biomasses increased first and then decreased. The largest tuber biomass was obtained at 65 seedling stage. With a delay in root cutting time, the trend line of aboveground, underground, and total biomasses changed gradually. However, whereas underground and total biomasses showed a gradually increasing, aboveground biomass showed a decreasing. The values of stem-leaf and shoot-root ratios under different root cutting were higher than those of the control. With a delay in root cutting time, stem-leaf ratio showed an initial increase and then decreased with largest value being obtained at 80 seedling stage, whereas the largest shoot-root ratio was obtained at 115 seedling stage.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Root cutting at radius 4/5 R improved tuber biomass by 23.48% to 50.32% compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosus
.jpg?width=60)
Helianthus tuberosust0 - Treatment
- root cutting radius 4/5 Re1
- Outcome
- Tuber biomasse1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 23.48% to 50.32%e1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e1“Tuber biomass was improved by 23.48% to 50.32%, with the largest tuber biomass obtained at root cutting radius 4/5 R”
e2“Compared with the control, stem, tuber, and root biomasses were all improved, whereas both flower and leaf biomasses were increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Tuber biomass was largest at root cutting radius 4/5 R.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- root cutting radius 4/5 Re1
- Outcome
- Tuber biomasse1
- Direction
- largeste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e1“Tuber biomass was improved by 23.48% to 50.32%, with the largest tuber biomass obtained at root cutting radius 4/5 R”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning improved stem, tuber and root biomasses compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- root pruninge3
- Outcome
- stem, tuber, and root biomassese2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Comparator
- the controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e3“we conducted root pruning”
e2“Compared with the control, stem, tuber, and root biomasses were all improved, whereas both flower and leaf biomasses were increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning increased flower and leaf biomasses compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- root pruninge3
- Outcome
- flower and leaf biomassese2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Comparator
- the controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e3“we conducted root pruning”
e2“Compared with the control, stem, tuber, and root biomasses were all improved, whereas both flower and leaf biomasses were increased”
Claim · model-written summary
With delayed root cutting time, tuber and root biomasses increased first and then decreased.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- delayed root cutting timee6
- Outcome
- tuber and root biomassese6
- Direction
- increased first and then decreasede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e6“With delayed root cutting time, tuber and root biomasses increased first and then decreased”
Claim · model-written summary
The largest tuber biomass was obtained at 65 seedling stage.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Outcome
- tuber biomasse7
- Direction
- largeste7
- Qualifier
- at 65 seedling stagee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e7“The largest tuber biomass was obtained at 65 seedling stage”
Claim · model-written summary
With a delay in root cutting time, underground and total biomasses increased gradually.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- a delay in root cutting timee2
- Outcome
- underground and total biomassese3
- Direction
- gradually increasinge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e2“With a delay in root cutting time, the trend line of aboveground, underground, and total biomasses changed gradually”
e3“whereas underground and total biomasses showed a gradually increasing, aboveground biomass showed a decreasing”
Claim · model-written summary
With a delay in root cutting time, aboveground biomass decreased.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- a delay in root cutting timee2
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse3
- Direction
- decreasinge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e2“With a delay in root cutting time, the trend line of aboveground, underground, and total biomasses changed gradually”
e3“whereas underground and total biomasses showed a gradually increasing, aboveground biomass showed a decreasing”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem-leaf and shoot-root ratios under different root cutting were higher than those of the control.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- different root cuttinge4
- Outcome
- stem-leaf and shoot-root ratiose4
- Direction
- highere4
- Comparator
- the controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e4“The values of stem-leaf and shoot-root ratios under different root cutting were higher than those of the control”
Claim · model-written summary
With a delay in root cutting time, stem-leaf ratio showed an initial increase and then a decrease, with the largest value at 80 seedling stage.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Treatment
- a delay in root cutting timee5
- Outcome
- stem-leaf ratioe5
- Direction
- an initial increase and then decreasede5
- Qualifier
- largest value being obtained at 80 seedling stagee5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e5“With a delay in root cutting time, stem-leaf ratio showed an initial increase and then decreased with largest value being obtained at 80 seedling stage”
Claim · model-written summary
The largest shoot-root ratio was obtained at 115 seedling stage.
- Taxon
- Helianthus tuberosusHelianthus tuberosust0
- Outcome
- shoot-root ratioe6
- Direction
- largeste6
- Qualifier
- at 115 seedling stagee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Helianthus tuberosus”
e6“the largest shoot-root ratio was obtained at 115 seedling stage”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
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.