Abstract
The main effects of lime, aluminium, iron and manganese were studied in field and greenhouse grown tobacco; relations between soil and plant measurements were examined. Ground limestone, ground mixed lime, ground dolomite and slaked lime at rates equivalent to 1,000 and 2,000 lb. CaC0₃/acre increased yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco both on Triassic and granite sands, whether applied early (February/March) or late (September); the highest rate and late application were often best. Yields increased with 4,000 and 6,000 lb. dolomite/acre applied late, but quality decreased when the pH was about 6.0. Lime did not affect leaf maturity as reflected by nitrogen and reducing sugars concentration . Where leaf discolouration (slate) occurred, the best quality and least discoloured leaf had the lowest manganese concentration and was grown on limed soil. On a very acid and probably nitrogen deficient soil, lime, borax and nitrogen (nitrate only tested) reduced the discolouration and improved the quality, but potassium sulphate increased discolouration and decreased quality. Calcium concentration in the leaf was increased by lime, particularly calcitic materials, and magnesium concentration was increased by dolomite. Lime also increased the filling value and petroleum ether extract, but decreased manganese, boron, chloride and sometimes potassium, and had no effect on phosphorus, nitrogen, aluminium, iron, crude fibre, nicotine, reducing sugars and equilibrium moisture. The inorganic composition of greenhouse plants was similar; generally gypsum increased calcium concentration more than calcium carbonate but it did not affect manganese concentration, which was decreased by calcium carbonate. In the stem and roots of field grown plants (dolomite only tested), the concentration of magnesium was increased but the concentrations of calcium, potassium, aluminium and iron were unaffected. Although the concentration of nitrogen was increased and that of phosphorus was decreased in the stem, these were unaffected in the roots. Aluminium and iron behaved differently to other nutrient ions, being more concentrated in the roots than aerial plant parts. Boron and magnesium deficiencies were observed in a dry and wet year, respectively, suggesting that variable mineral deficiencies can affect responses to lime. Initially soil pH was affected more by source of lime, but later mostly by rates. Slaked lime increased the soil pH more than did ground limestone, mixed lime or dolomite. In a glasshouse experiment, pH was more important than calcium supply and in the field, the largest yields were often associated with the highest pH. In pot experiments, aluminium drastically reduced yields in nutrient solution but not in soils, whereas iron was more severe in soils; manganese had little effect on yield. Manganese was readily taken up and translocated to the tops, but aluminium and iron were mainly concentrated in the roots, as was found in field grown plants. Iron decreased manganese concentration in all plant parts and aluminium decreased…
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Four lime materials at 1,000 and 2,000 lb. CaC0₃/acre increased tobacco yield and quality on Triassic and granite sands.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Ground limestone, ground mixed lime, ground dolomite and slaked lime at rates equivalent to 1,000 and 2,000 lb. CaC0₃/acre increased yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco both on Triassic and granite sands”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Late applications of 4,000 and 6,000 lb. dolomite/acre increased yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Yields increased with 4,000 and 6,000 lb. dolomite/acre applied late”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Tobacco quality decreased at about pH 6.0 under high dolomite rates.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Yields increased with 4,000 and 6,000 lb. dolomite/acre applied late, but quality decreased when the pH was about 6.0”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime did not affect leaf maturity measured through nitrogen and reducing sugars.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Lime did not affect leaf maturity as reflected by nitrogen and reducing sugars concentration”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
The least discolored and best-quality tobacco leaf had the lowest manganese concentration on limed soil.
- Taxon
- tobacco
Nicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the best quality and least discoloured leaf had the lowest manganese concentration and was grown on limed soil”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime, borax and nitrate reduced tobacco leaf discoloration and improved quality on very acid soil.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On a very acid and probably nitrogen deficient soil, lime, borax and nitrogen (nitrate only tested) reduced the discolouration and improved the quality”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Potassium sulphate increased leaf discoloration and decreased tobacco quality.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“potassium sulphate increased discolouration and decreased quality”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime increased leaf calcium concentration, particularly calcitic lime.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calcium concentration in the leaf was increased by lime, particularly calcitic materials”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Dolomite increased leaf magnesium concentration.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“magnesium concentration was increased by dolomite”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime increased tobacco filling value and petroleum ether extract.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lime also increased the filling value and petroleum ether extract”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime decreased leaf manganese, boron, chloride and sometimes potassium.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lime also increased the filling value and petroleum ether extract, but decreased manganese, boron, chloride and sometimes potassium”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Lime had no effect on measured leaf constituents including nicotine and sugars.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lime also increased the filling value and petroleum ether extract, but decreased manganese, boron, chloride and sometimes potassium, and had no effect on phosphorus, nitrogen, aluminium, iron, crude fibre, nicotine, reducing sugars and equilibrium moisture”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum increased greenhouse tobacco calcium more than calcium carbonate.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gypsum increased calcium concentration more than calcium carbonate”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium carbonate decreased manganese concentration whereas gypsum did not.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“generally gypsum increased calcium concentration more than calcium carbonate but it did not affect manganese concentration, which was decreased by calcium carbonate”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Dolomite increased magnesium concentration in tobacco stems and roots.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the stem and roots of field grown plants (dolomite only tested), the concentration of magnesium was increased”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminium sharply reduced tobacco yields in nutrient solution but not soil.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aluminium drastically reduced yields in nutrient solution but not in soils”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Iron more severely reduced tobacco yield in soil than nutrient solution.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aluminium drastically reduced yields in nutrient solution but not in soils, whereas iron was more severe in soils”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Manganese had little effect on tobacco yield.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“manganese had little effect on yield”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Aluminium and iron accumulated mainly in tobacco roots while manganese moved to tops.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Manganese was readily taken up and translocated to the tops, but aluminium and iron were mainly concentrated in the roots”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Iron decreased manganese concentration in all tobacco plant parts.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Iron decreased manganese concentration in all plant parts”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
The same questions in other papers
manganese atom · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
calcium oxide · quality: general · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
iron atom · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
calcium carbonate · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
iron atom · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
aluminium atom · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
lime · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
lime · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.