↓ Skip to main content

Influence of weight and type of planting material on fruit quality and its heterogeneity in pineapple [Ananas comosus (L.) Merrill]

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influence of weight and type of planting material on fruit quality and its heterogeneity in pineapple [Ananas comosus (L.) Merrill]
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2014.00798
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Nicodème Fassinou Hotegni, Willemien J. M. Lommen, Euloge K. Agbossou, Paul C. Struik

Abstract

Cultural practices can affect the quality of pineapple fruits and its variation. The objectives of this study were to investigate (a) effects of weight class and type of planting material on fruit quality, heterogeneity in quality and proportion and yield of fruits meeting European export standards, and (b) the improvement in quality, proportion and yield of fruits meeting export standards when flowering was induced at optimum time. Experiments were conducted in Benin with cvs Sugarloaf (a Perola type) and Smooth Cayenne. In cv. Sugarloaf, experimental factors were weight class of planting material (light, mixed, heavy) and time of flowering induction (farmers', optimum) (Experiment 1). In cv. Smooth Cayenne an additional experimental factor was the type of planting material (hapas, ground suckers, a mixture of the two) (Experiment 2). Fruits from heavy planting material had higher infructescence and fruit weights, longer infructescences, shorter crowns, and smaller crown: infructescence length than fruits from light planting material. The type of planting material in Experiment 2 did not significantly affect fruit quality except crown length: fruits from hapas had shorter crowns than those from ground suckers. Crops from heavy planting material had a higher proportion and yield of fruits meeting export standards than those from other weight classes in Experiment 1 only; also the type of planting material in Experiment 2 did not affect these variates. Heterogeneity in fruit quality was usually not reduced by selecting only light or heavy planting material instead of mixing weights; incidentally the coefficient of variation was significantly reduced in fruits from heavy slips only. Heterogeneity was also not reduced by not mixing hapas and ground suckers. Flowering induction at optimum time increased the proportion and yield of fruits meeting export standards in fruits from light and mixed slip weights and in those from the mixture of heavy hapas plus ground suckers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 5%
Unknown 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 13 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 45%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,249,662
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#15,972
of 20,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,526
of 351,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#168
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.