Paper · 1989 · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Effects of Plant Density on Growth and Biomass Partitioning in Pickling Cucumbers

Irvin E. Widders; Hugh C. Price

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
22
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Abstract Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik) were direct-seeded at six plant densities (in thousands, 44, 77, 97, 121, 152, 194) using two between-row spacings (71 and 36 cm) and three within-row spacings (29, 14, and 11 cm between plants). Compared with the 29 cm within-row spacing, the 11- and 14-cm spacings resulted in significantly lower total above-ground plant dry weights, growth rates, and total leaf areas for both cultivars as early as 21 to 27 days after planting. The between-row spacing effects on plant growth were similar, but were of a lower magnitude and appeared later in plant development than for the within-row spacing effects. Leaf lamina and fruit tissue exhibited the largest reduction in tissue dry weights per plant compared to stem and petiole tissue when plant density was increased from ≈4.5 to 20 plants/m −2 (45,000 to 200,000 plants/ha). Lower fruit productivity per plant at higher plant densities resulted from fewer fruit set per plant and lower fruit : shoot ratios. Unit leaf rate (g dry weight/day per g of lamina dry weight) was not affected by plant spacing during the fruit development period. Increased densities resulted in significantly higher leaf area indexes, and vegetative and total above-ground dry weights/m −2 . Total fruit yield with a single harvest did not increase above ≈77,000 plants/ha for both cultivars. A high correlation ( r = 0.877) between leaf lamina dry weight and fruit growth rate indicates that net photosynthetic capacity might be limiting fruit productive potential in pickling cucumbers.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Closer within-row spacings of 11 and 14 cm significantly lowered total above-ground dry weight, growth rate and total leaf area compared with 29 cm within-row spacing for both cultivars from 21 to 27 days after planting.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Material
Tamor and Castlepike0
Treatment
the 11- and 14-cm spacingse1
Outcome
total above-ground plant dry weights, growth rates, and total leaf arease1
Direction
lowere1
Qualifier
21 to 27 days after plantinge1
Comparator
29 cm within-row spacinge1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e1

“Compared with the 29 cm within-row spacing, the 11- and 14-cm spacings resulted in significantly lower total above-ground plant dry weights, growth rates, and total leaf areas for both cultivars as early as 21 to 27 days after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 271–506 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Between-row spacing effects on plant growth were of a lower magnitude than within-row spacing effects and appeared later in plant development.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Treatment
between-row spacinge2
Outcome
plant growthe2
Direction
lowere2
Qualifier
appeared later in plant developmente2
Comparator
within-row spacinge2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e2

“The between-row spacing effects on plant growth were similar, but were of a lower magnitude and appeared later in plant development than for the within-row spacing effects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 508–679 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant density increased from about 4.5 to 20 plants per square metre caused the largest reduction in leaf lamina and fruit dry weight per plant compared with stem and petiole tissue.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Organ / stage
Leaf lamina and fruit tissuee3
Treatment
plant density was increased from ≈4.5 to 20 plants/m −2e3
Outcome
tissue dry weights per plante3
Direction
largest reductione3
Comparator
stem and petiole tissuee3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e3

“Leaf lamina and fruit tissue exhibited the largest reduction in tissue dry weights per plant compared to stem and petiole tissue when plant density was increased from ≈4.5 to 20 plants/m −2 (45,000 to 200,000 plants/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–900 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit productivity per plant was lower at higher plant densities.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Treatment
higher plant densitiese4
Outcome
fruit productivity per plante4
Direction
Lowere4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e4

“Lower fruit productivity per plant at higher plant densities resulted from fewer fruit set per plant and lower fruit : shoot ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–1033 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lower fruit productivity per plant at higher densities is attributed to fewer fruit set per plant and lower fruit : shoot ratios.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Outcome
fruit productivity per plante4
Qualifier
fewer fruit set per plant and lower fruit : shoot ratiose4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e4

“Lower fruit productivity per plant at higher plant densities resulted from fewer fruit set per plant and lower fruit : shoot ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 902–1033 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Unit leaf rate was not affected by plant spacing during the fruit development period.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Treatment
plant spacinge5
Outcome
Unit leaf ratee5
Direction
no_changeinferrede5
Qualifier
during the fruit development periode5

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e5

“Unit leaf rate (g dry weight/day per g of lamina dry weight) was not affected by plant spacing during the fruit development period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1035–1165 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increased densities significantly increased leaf area index, and vegetative and total above-ground dry weights per square metre.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Treatment
Increased densitiese6
Outcome
leaf area indexes, and vegetative and total above-ground dry weights/m −2e6
Direction
highere6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e6

“Increased densities resulted in significantly higher leaf area indexes, and vegetative and total above-ground dry weights/m −2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1293 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total fruit yield with a single harvest did not increase above about 77,000 plants per hectare for both cultivars.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Material
both cultivarse7
Outcome
Total fruit yielde7
Direction
did not increasee7
Qualifier
above ≈77,000 plants/hae7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e7

“Total fruit yield with a single harvest did not increase above ≈77,000 plants/ha for both cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1296–1395 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf lamina dry weight was highly correlated with fruit growth rate (r = 0.877).

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Organ / stage
leaf laminae1
Outcome
fruit growth ratee1
Direction
higherinferrede1
Value
r = 0.877e1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e1

“A high correlation ( r = 0.877) between leaf lamina dry weight and fruit growth rate indicates that net photosynthetic capacity might be limiting fruit productive potential in pickling cucumbers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1397–1591 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Net photosynthetic capacity might be limiting fruit productive potential in pickling cucumbers.

Taxon
Cucumis sativus L.Cucumis sativuse0
Outcome
fruit productive potentiale1
Qualifier
net photosynthetic capacitye1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pickling cucumbers ( Cucumis sativus L. cvs. Tamor and Castlepik)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–74 · show in text ↑
e1

“A high correlation ( r = 0.877) between leaf lamina dry weight and fruit growth rate indicates that net photosynthetic capacity might be limiting fruit productive potential in pickling cucumbers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1397–1591 · show in text ↑

density · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

19 papers: 14 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 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.