Abstract
Abstract An appropriate coupling of water fertilizer can improve the quality and yield of tobacco ( Nicotiana tabacum L.). However, the optimal scheme of that is still unknown under the condition of effective microorganisms (EM) biochar‐based fertilizer application. In this study, 12 treatments were set up, which were divided into four fertilization gradients (0, 100, 300, and 600 g pot –1 , represented CK1–CK3, T1–T3, T4–T6, and T7–T9, respectively), and each fertilization gradient had three irrigation gradients (40, 80, and 120 L pot –1 ). Each treatment was set in triplicate. Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer. The quality of flue‐cured tobacco was less affected by the amount of irrigation ( P > .05), and the yield was positively correlated with the amount of irrigation and EM biochar‐based fertilizer ( P < .05). The principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on all indexes of flue‐cured tobacco quality and established the comprehensive evaluation system. Analytic hierarchy process–entropy weight method (AHP–EWM) and projection pursuit classification (PPC) algorithms were utilized to build the model, and the optimal water–fertilizer coupling scheme was selected according to AHP–EWM score and projection values. In conclusion, 120 L pot –1 irrigation combined with 100 g pot –1 of EM biochar‐based fertilizer application treatment was the best water‐fertilizer coupling scheme, and the AHP–EWM score and projection value were .632 and 1.169. The results of this study might provide theoretical and practical guidance for the plantation of flue‐cured tobacco in production areas.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
EM biochar-based fertilizer increased nicotine content of flue-cured tobacco by 13.22–48.87% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- tobacco
Nicotiana tabacume1 - Treatment
- EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- nicotine contente1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 13.22–48.87%e1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM biochar-based fertilizer increased reducing sugar of flue-cured tobacco by 1.53–13.46% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- reducing sugare1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 1.53–13.46%e1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM biochar-based fertilizer increased total nitrogen of flue-cured tobacco by 7.68–29.23% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- total nitrogene1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 7.68–29.23%e1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM biochar-based fertilizer increased potassium of flue-cured tobacco by 7.73–21.76% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- potassiume1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 7.73–21.76%e1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM biochar-based fertilizer increased chlorine of flue-cured tobacco by 6.48–34.55% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- chlorinee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 6.48–34.55%e1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
EM biochar-based fertilizer increased yield of flue-cured tobacco by 7.93–65.51% compared with CK.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 7.93–65.51%e1
- Comparator
- CKe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Compared to CK, the nicotine content, reducing sugar, total nitrogen, potassium, chlorine, and yield of flue‐cured tobacco increased by 13.22–48.87%, 1.53–13.46%, 7.68–29.23%, 7.73–21.76%, 6.48–34.55%, and 7.93–65.51% after the application of EM biochar‐based fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Flue-cured tobacco quality was less affected by the amount of irrigation.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume1
- Treatment
- amount of irrigatione1
- Outcome
- qualitye1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The quality of flue‐cured tobacco was less affected by the amount of irrigation ( P > .05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield of flue-cured tobacco was positively correlated with the amount of irrigation and EM biochar-based fertilizer.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume2
- Treatment
- amount of irrigatione1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- positively correlatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the yield was positively correlated with the amount of irrigation and EM biochar‐based fertilizer ( P < .05)”
e2“The results of this study might provide theoretical and practical guidance for the plantation of flue‐cured tobacco in production areas”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination of 120 L pot-1 irrigation with 100 g pot-1 EM biochar-based fertilizer was the best water-fertilizer coupling scheme for flue-cured tobacco.
- Taxon
- tobaccoNicotiana tabacume2
- Treatment
- 120 L pot –1 irrigation combined with 100 g pot –1 of EM biochar‐based fertilizere1
- Outcome
- best water‐fertilizer coupling schemee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“120 L pot –1 irrigation combined with 100 g pot –1 of EM biochar‐based fertilizer application treatment was the best water‐fertilizer coupling scheme”
e2“The results of this study might provide theoretical and practical guidance for the plantation of flue‐cured tobacco in production areas”
Claim · model-written summary
The AHP-EWM score and projection value of the best scheme were 0.632 and 1.169.
Verbatim
e1“the AHP–EWM score and projection value were .632 and 1.169”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results differ
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
77 papers more in this group
See all 81 papers →biochar · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
96 papers more in this group
See all 100 papers →fertilization · yield · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
186 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
210 papers more in this group
See all 214 papers →inoculation · quality: sugar starch · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
8 of 11 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.