The Influence of Sowing Density and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Yielding and Main Technological Features of Some Hemp Varieties
Source abstract
Abstract
The experiments aimed to determine the effect of sowing density and nitrogen fertilization on the panicle yield morphological features of plants in selected cultivars of fiber hemp. A three-factor field experiment in 2014–2016 at the Experimental Station of the Institute of Natural Fibres and Medicinal Plants in Pętkowo (52°20’ N, 17°25’ E, Poland) was conducted. The study included monoecious cultivar (“Futura 75,” “KC Dora” and “Tygra”), sowing density (60 germinating seeds·1 m2 and 180 germinating seeds·1 m2), and nitrogen fertilization (0, 30, 60, 90 kg·ha−1). The sowing density modified the overall length of the stem, the technical length of the stem, and the diameter of the stem, and higher values of the features mentioned above were obtained with a lower assumed plant density, i.e. 60 germinating seeds·1 m2. Nitrogen fertilization over the three-year study period did not significantly modify the yield of hemp panicles. The tested varieties differed in productivity, the highest panicle yield was found in the “Futura 75.”
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems · Plant Physiology and Cultivation Studies · Agriculture and Biological Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Agronomy, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Natural Fibres and Medicinal Plants University, Poznan, Poland
Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Funding
Research and Development · Ministry of Agriculture
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e0875310.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08753 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.02.00210.1016/j.fcr.2008.02.002 ↗
3. 10.3389/fpls.2016.0001910.3389/fpls.2016.00019 ↗
4. 10.2134/cftm2015.015910.2134/cftm2015.0159 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.11186010.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111860 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.03.00710.1016/j.indcrop.2006.03.007 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10681-004-4755-x10.1007/s10681-004-4755-x ↗
8. 10.1079/9781845937935.027810.1079/9781845937935.0278 ↗
9. Burczyk, H. 2016. “Konopie oleiste (Cannabis Sativa L. var oleifera) uprawiane na nasiona do produkcji oleju i biogazu.” Problemy Inżynierii Rolniczej 4 (94): 109–116.
10. 10.1080/1544047090297258810.1080/15440470902972588 ↗
11. Burczyk, H., J. Kołodziej, and M. Kowalska. 2008. “Konopie - roślina energetyczna.” Czysta Energia (9): 42–44.
12. 10.1023/A:102182361009010.1023/A:1021823610090 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.02.02210.1016/j.indcrop.2017.02.022 ↗
14. 10.1079/9781845937935.002710.1079/9781845937935.0027 ↗
15. Clark, V., and SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.1 : user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Pub.
16. 10.3390/app920443210.3390/app9204432 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.11.01710.1016/j.indcrop.2011.11.017 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12218010.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122180 ↗
19. European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA). 2020. Hemp Cultivation & Production in Europe in 2018. https://eiha.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2018-Hemp-agri-report.pdf.
20. 10.4060/cc3017en10.4060/cc3017en ↗
21. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.04.05510.1016/j.indcrop.2012.04.055 ↗
22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Rome, Italy.
23. 10.1300/J395v02n04_0110.1300/J395v02n04_01 ↗
24. 10.3390/su1304215710.3390/su13042157 ↗
25. 10.25121/PF.2017.16.2.13910.25121/PF.2017.16.2.139 ↗
26. 10.3906/bot-1907-1510.3906/bot-1907-15 ↗
27. 10.1002/agj2.2134510.1002/agj2.21345 ↗
28. Kołodziej, J., and J. Mańkowski. 2004. “Wykorzystanie paździerzy jako odnawialne żródło energii.” Len i Konopie Biuletyn Informacyjny Polskiej Izby Lnu i Konopi (3): 62–69.
29. 10.1080/15440478.2022.215960910.1080/15440478.2022.2159609 ↗
30. 10.3390/su14221533710.3390/su142215337 ↗
31. Mańkowska, G., and G. Oleszak. 2017. “Zawartość kannabinoidów w wybranych odmianach konopi siewnych Cannabis sativa L. zgromadzonych w Banku Genów Instytutu Włókien Naturalnych i Roślin Zielarskich w Poznaniu.” Biuletyn Polskiej Izby Lnu i Konopi – PILIK (29): 25–29.
32. 10.1007/s00334-019-00731-810.1007/s00334-019-00731-8 ↗
33. Meier, C., and V. Mediavilla. 1998. “Factors Influencing the Yield and the Quality of Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) Essential Oil.” Journal of the International Hemp Association 5:16–20.
34. 10.1590/0001-376520192019067610.1590/0001-3765201920190676 ↗
35. 10.17221/223/2022-PSE10.17221/223/2022-PSE ↗
36. 10.1111/epp.1278810.1111/epp.12788 ↗
37. 10.3390/su1512961010.3390/su15129610 ↗
38. 10.1016/S0926-6690(99)00038-210.1016/S0926-6690(99)00038-2 ↗
39. Sausserde, R., A. Adamovics, S. Ivanovs, and V. Bulgakov. 2013. “Investigations into Growing and Harvesting Industrial Hemp.” Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering 58 (4): 150–154.
40. Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th ed. Washington, DC: USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service.
41. 10.1016/S0926-6690(99)00048-510.1016/S0926-6690(99)00048-5 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.03310.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.033 ↗
43. 10.3390/biom1001014810.3390/biom10010148 ↗
44. 10.4141/P04-02210.4141/P04-022 ↗
45. 10.3390/agronomy1303093110.3390/agronomy13030931 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.jksus.2022.10241910.1016/j.jksus.2022.102419 ↗