2011
DOI: 10.15835/nsb315623
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimate of Leaf Chlorophyll and Nitrogen Content in Asian Pear (Pyrus serotina Rehd.) by CCM-200

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
0
5

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
16
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…According to these results, 38-87 % of the total variation of LNC of first-and second-flush leaves was explained using CCI as an independent variable (Table 2). This finding is consistent with the results of earlier research conducted on forest trees (Chang and Robison 2003;Van den Berg and Perkins 2004;Percival et al 2008;Salifu et al 2008;Ghasemi et al 2011).…”
Section: Relationship Between CCI and Lncsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…According to these results, 38-87 % of the total variation of LNC of first-and second-flush leaves was explained using CCI as an independent variable (Table 2). This finding is consistent with the results of earlier research conducted on forest trees (Chang and Robison 2003;Van den Berg and Perkins 2004;Percival et al 2008;Salifu et al 2008;Ghasemi et al 2011).…”
Section: Relationship Between CCI and Lncsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…1). Significant correlations between SPAD or CCM readings and leaf N concentration have also been presented by Wang et al (2014) on rice and by Ghasemi et al (2011) on Asian pear. In our study, the highest correlation coefficients between the analysed parameters were shown for the first two dates of leaf sampling and the lowest for the last date.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The conventional extraction of leaf chlorophyll with acetone or similar organic solvents is laborious, time consuming and always destructive, requiring tissue extraction and spectrophotometric measurement (Lichtenthaler, 1987;Biber, 2007). Previous research conducted on different species showed significant linear correlation of total chlorophyll (by spectrophotometry) and chlorophyll content index (CCI) values, although with large differences in terms of data correlation (Van den Berg & Perkins, 2004;Ghasemi et al, 2011;Khaleghi et al, 2012;Callejas et al, 2013). The lack of a more consistent relationship between total chlorophyll by extraction and CCI values (non-destructive) for different V. vinifera L. genotypes and in different phenophases limits the potential use of the CCM-200 plus instrument for this specie (Filimon et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%