2015
DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2015.1069342
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of nondestructive sensors to quantify ornamental kale nitrogen status

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, all three variables increased with increasing fertilizer rates with the 10-and 15-g treatments not showing differences for height and dry weight and the 5-, 10-, and 15-g treatments not showing any difference for plant width (Table 3). Dunn et al (2014) also reported similar findings for ornamental kale 'Nagoya Red' in which 10-, 15-, and 20-g fertilizer rates were not different for height and width and no difference was observed for fresh weight among the 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-g fertilizer rates at 53 d after treatment. Gibson and Whipker (2000) reported no differences in height among fertilizer rates and differences between the lowest fertilizer rate of 150 mg • L -1 and the two higher rates of 200 and 250 mg • L -1 after B-Nine foliar applications for ornamental kale.…”
Section: Plantsupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, all three variables increased with increasing fertilizer rates with the 10-and 15-g treatments not showing differences for height and dry weight and the 5-, 10-, and 15-g treatments not showing any difference for plant width (Table 3). Dunn et al (2014) also reported similar findings for ornamental kale 'Nagoya Red' in which 10-, 15-, and 20-g fertilizer rates were not different for height and width and no difference was observed for fresh weight among the 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-g fertilizer rates at 53 d after treatment. Gibson and Whipker (2000) reported no differences in height among fertilizer rates and differences between the lowest fertilizer rate of 150 mg • L -1 and the two higher rates of 200 and 250 mg • L -1 after B-Nine foliar applications for ornamental kale.…”
Section: Plantsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…For SPAD, week effects were not different, but for atLEAF, weeks were significant indicating greater accuracy in detecting changes in leaf N concentration (Tables 1, 2, and 4). Cultivar differences, sampling location, and number of readings can effect accuracy, because Dunn et al (2014) (Table 4). Leaf N concentration increased with increasing fertilizer rates (Table 4).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, cabbage or other vegetables often deliver some unique characteristics, such as dispersed distribution, various varieties, short-term growth cycle and complicated canopy architecture; and few studies have directly examined the practical utilization of Greenseeker hand-held optical sensor in vegetable production systems. Limited studies such as Sanderson et al (2012) found that Greenseeker had the potential to be an in-situ carrot health assessment tool and Dunn et al (2015) reported that the NDVI measurements of ornamental kale showed good correlations with leaf N content [ 31 , 32 ]. Nevertheless, these studies didn’t build any yield prediction or nitrogen recommendation algorithm for vegetable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tissue testing, such as petiole nitrate concentration, assessed by selective electrodes (Vitosh and Silva 1994;Sims et al 1995) or test strips (Sims et al 1995;Rodrigues 2004;Rodrigues et al 2005) and also chlorophyll measurements through portable tools (Schepers et al 1992; Rodrigues et al 2006;Arrobas, Aguiar, and Rodrigues 2016) may be valuable alternatives. The reflectance properties of the canopy, assessed by handheld spectroradiometers (Basyouni, Dunn, and Goad 2015;Dunn, Shrestha, and Goad 2016), imagery from satellite sensors (Gitelson, Peng, and Huemmrich 2014;Zhang et al 2014) or digital cameras (Hardin et al 2012;L opez-Bellido et al 2012) have also been used to estimate nutritional status of plants. Tissue tests are, however, more popular since they are available to a large research community as well as farmers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%