Paper · 2022 · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science

The Growth and Yield Responses of Shallot (Allium Ascalonicum L.) to Plant Spacing and Tuber Cutting by NFT Hydroponic

T E N Siagian; E R Sasmita; E B Irawati

3
claims
5
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Shallot (Allium ascalonicum L.) is a kind of horticultural commodity, which has good development potential in Indonesia. In order to overcome the uncertainty of climatic conditions and demand that continues to increase as the population of Indonesia increases, it is necessary to develop shallot cultivation techniques using the NFT hydroponic system. This study aimed to determine the effect of the interaction between plant spacing and tuber cutting on the growth and yield of shallots. The study was conducted in February-April 2021 at Hidroponikpedia, Pandowoharjo, Kab. Sleman, Special Region of Yogyakarta 55512. The study used a two-factor split-plot design replicated 3 times. The main plot used plant spacing consisting of 3 levels (10x10 cm, 10x15 cm, and 10x20 cm) and the subplot used the tuber cutting consisting of 3 levels (without cutting, cutting 1/3 parts, and cutting 1/4 parts). Record data on growth and yield parameters, and perform analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the 5% level of significance. The results showed that there was no interaction between plant spacing and tuber cutting on the growth and yield of shallot. The tuber cutting treatment has obvious growth and yield, but the difference in plant spacing between the kinds of plant spacing is not significant.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant spacing and tuber cutting showed no interaction for shallot growth and yield.

Treatment
plant spacing and tuber cuttinge0
Outcome
growth and yielde0
Direction
no interactione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa var. aggregatum
Allium cepa var. aggregatum · TaxonEvan-Amos · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no interaction between plant spacing and tuber cutting on the growth and yield of shallot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1050–1149 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tuber cutting was reported to affect growth and yield, without a clear direction.

Treatment
tuber cutting treatmente0
Outcome
growth and yielde0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Allium cepa var. aggregatum
Allium cepa var. aggregatum · TaxonEvan-Amos · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The tuber cutting treatment has obvious growth and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1151–1207 · show in text ↑
t0

“Shallot (Allium Ascalonicum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Differences among plant spacings were not significant.

Treatment
plant spacinge0
Outcome
differencee0
Comparator
kinds of plant spacinge0

Not reportedDirection

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

Allium cepa var. aggregatum
Allium cepa var. aggregatum · TaxonEvan-Amos · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the difference in plant spacing between the kinds of plant spacing is not significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1213–1298 · show in text ↑
t0

“Shallot (Allium Ascalonicum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–65 · show in text ↑

pruning · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 3 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

density · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

54 papers: 48 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 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.