Abstract
Abstract In the southeastern United States, inconsistent pine bark (PB) supplies and overabundance of cotton gin by products warrant investigation about the feasibility of replacing PB with cotton gin compost (CGC) for container horticultural plant production. Most research on the use of composted organic substrates for horticultural plant production has focused on shoot growth responses, so there is a need to document the effect of these substrates on root growth. In 2004 ‘Blitz’ tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum L.), ‘Hot Country’ lantana ( Lantana camara Mill. ‘Hot Country’), and weeping fig ( Ficus benjamina L.) were placed in Horhizotrons™ to evaluate root growth in 100% PB and three PB:CGC substrates containing by volume, 60:40 PB:CGC, 40:60 PB:CGC, and 0:100 PB:CGC. Horhizotrons™ were placed in a greenhouse, and root growth in all substrates was measured for each cultivar. Physical properties (total porosity, water holding capacity, air space, and bulk density) and chemical properties (electrical conductivity and pH) were determined for all substrates. Physical properties of 100% PB were within recommended guidelines and were either within or above recommended ranges for all PB:CGC substrate blends. Chemical properties of all substrates were within or above recommended guidelines. Root growth of all species in substrates containing CGC was similar to or more enhanced than root growth in 100% PB.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Root growth of tomato in substrates containing cotton gin compost was similar to or more enhanced than in 100% pine bark.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume2 - Treatment
- substrates containing CGCe1
- Outcome
- Root growthe1
- Direction
- similar to or more enhancede1
- Comparator
- 100% PBe1
- Setting
- greenhousee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Root growth of all species in substrates containing CGC was similar to or more enhanced than root growth in 100% PB”
e2“tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum L.)”
e3“Horhizotrons™ were placed in a greenhouse”
Claim · model-written summary
Root growth of lantana in substrates containing cotton gin compost was similar to or more enhanced than in 100% pine bark.
- Treatment
- substrates containing CGCe1
- Outcome
- Root growthe1
- Direction
- similar to or more enhancede1
- Comparator
- 100% PBe1
- Setting
- greenhousee3
LantanaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Root growth of all species in substrates containing CGC was similar to or more enhanced than root growth in 100% PB”
e4“lantana ( Lantana camara Mill.”
e3“Horhizotrons™ were placed in a greenhouse”
Claim · model-written summary
Root growth of weeping fig in substrates containing cotton gin compost was similar to or more enhanced than in 100% pine bark.
- Taxon
- weeping fig
Ficus benjaminae5 - Treatment
- substrates containing CGCe1
- Outcome
- Root growthe1
- Direction
- similar to or more enhancede1
- Comparator
- 100% PBe1
- Setting
- greenhousee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Root growth of all species in substrates containing CGC was similar to or more enhanced than root growth in 100% PB”
e5“weeping fig ( Ficus benjamina L.)”
e3“Horhizotrons™ were placed in a greenhouse”
Claim · model-written summary
Physical properties of 100% pine bark and of all pine bark and cotton gin compost blends were within or above recommended ranges.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e6“Physical properties of 100% PB were within recommended guidelines and were either within or above recommended ranges for all PB:CGC substrate blends”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical properties of all substrates were within or above recommended guidelines.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e7“Chemical properties of all substrates were within or above recommended guidelines”
The same questions in other papers
Gossypium hirsutum · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Gossypium hirsutum · growth · LantanaResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Gossypium hirsutum · growth · Ficus benjamina (weeping fig)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
growing medium · growth · LantanaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
growing medium · growth · Ficus benjamina (weeping fig)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
growing medium · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
165 papers more in this group
See all 169 papers →fertilization · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
566 papers in the same direction as this paper · 93 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
664 papers more in this group
See all 668 papers →fertilization · growth · LantanaResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
8 of 9 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.