Planting arrangement, nitrogen resources and plant density on some vegetative characteristics of Melissa officinalis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X20876Abstract
In order to study the effect of nitrogen supply resources, planting arrangement and bush density on some vegetative characteristics in Melissa, an experiment was conducted as split-split- plot based on randomized complete blocks design with three replications in Takestan region in 2013. Planting arrangement were placed in two levels of diamond and square in main plots, nitrogen supply resources in three levels of chemical fertilizer, manure and vermicompost in sub plots and bush density in three levels of 30 × 30 cm, 40 × 40 cm and 50 × 50 cm in sub sub plots, too. Traits such as bush height, stem diameter, number of leaves per bush, leaf and stem dry weight and lateral branches were Measured. The results indicated that greatest bush height, number of leaves and lateral branches and dry weight related to usage of nitrogen fertilizer. The greatest stem diameter, lateral branches and stem dry weight related to diamond arrangement. Also, the greatest bush height and leaf dry weight related to density of 30×30 cm, the greatest lateral branches, number of leaves per bush and stem dry weight related to 40 × 40 cm density and the highest stem diameter related to 50 × 50cm density. The highest bush height, stem dry weight and number of leaves per bush belonged to square arrangement × chemical fertilizer × bush density of 30 × 30 cm interaction treatment. Also, the greatest stem diameter and number of lateral branches belonged to diamond arrangement × manure fertilizer × bush density of 40 × 40cm.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
