Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Foliar fertilizer did not affect tomato leaf area.

A claim from RESPONSE OF TOMATO, EGGPLANT, AND PEPPER TO NANO FERTILIZERS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR ADDITION · 2021

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar fertilizer did not affect tomato leaf area.

Treatment
Foliar fertilizere0
Outcome
leaf areae0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar fertilizer did not affect the leaf area of tomato and pepper plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1374

Title

RESPONSE OF TOMATO, EGGPLANT, AND PEPPER TO NANO FERTILIZERS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR ADDITION

Fadhil Jawad Kadhim; Rabab A. Hakim; Abbas K. Mijwel PLANT ARCHIVES 2021. doi:10.51470/plantarchives.2021.v21.s1.011

Other claims from this paper (10)

Record rev-aa8fddeef0d4b6f3d97519fe066cea4658df696748c6bafdc9f57bbe2aee0687 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 10 in the model’s answer

application · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

253 papers: 225 positive, 28 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this claim · 224 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Foliar HA applications raised leaf and stem dry matter content of tomato relative to the control.

    Foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid affect productivity and quality of tomato · 2006 · compared with the control

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Foliar 30 nm SNPs increased tomato shoot biomass by 55.6% after 10 weeks.

    Elemental Sulfur Nanoparticles Enhance Disease Resistance in Tomatoes · 2021

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Salicylic acid, especially foliar pretreatment, improved tomato growth and traits reduced by salinity.

    Effectiveness of different methods of salicylic acid application on growth characteristics of tomato seedlings under salinity · 2019 · compared with NaCl salinity

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Drench hydrolysate increased digital biomass relative to the control.

    A Combined Phenotypic and Metabolomic Approach for Elucidating the Biostimulant Action of a Plant-Derived Protein Hydrolysate on Tomato Grown Under Limited Water Availability · 2019 · compared with control

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Foliar 100 ppm ZnO-NPs performed best for tomato growth parameters and physiological traits.

    Impact of Foliar Application of Zinc and Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles on Growth, Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Quality of Tomato · 2023

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Substrate drench increased tomato root dry weight by 21% versus untreated plants.

    Protein Hydrolysate Stimulates Growth in Tomato Coupled With N-Dependent Gene Expression Involved in N Assimilation · 2018 · compared with untreated tomato plants

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Foliar 1 mM SA improved growth of NaCl-stressed tomato.

    Exogenous salicylic acid alleviates NaCl toxicity and increases antioxidative enzyme activity in Lycopersicon esculentum · 2008

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Foliar CTS-NPs increased shoot dry weight by 38% relative to control plants.

    Effect of Foliar Fertigation of Chitosan Nanoparticles on Cadmium Accumulation and Toxicity in Solanum lycopersicum · 2021 · compared with control plants

    Opposite direction

244 papers more in this group

See all 253 papers →

fertilization · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

668 papers: 567 positive, 101 negative or no effect

101 papers in the same direction as this claim · 566 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Three of the composts significantly improved tomato plant growth.

    Effect of compost on rhizosphere microflora of the tomato and on the incidence of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria · 1995

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Low doses of compost (10 and 20%) significantly increased aerial and root biomass of tomato plants.

    Compost and vermicompost as nursery pot components: effects on tomato plant growth and morphology · 2009

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Vermicompost promoted tomato stem diameter and plant height compared with other fertilizers in all three soil types.

    Vermicompost Improves Tomato Yield and Quality and the Biochemical Properties of Soils with Different Tomato Planting History in a Greenhouse Study · 2017 · compared with other fertilizer treatments

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Compost and blended compost increased tomato fruit weight by 16%.

    Agronomic Evaluation of Biochar, Compost and Biochar-Blended Compost across Different Cropping Systems: Perspective from the European Project FERTIPLUS · 2019

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Nonsterile compost increased tomato plant height and total leaf surface relative to sterile compost.

    Rhizosphere Microbiome Recruited from a Suppressive Compost Improves Plant Fitness and Increases Protection against Vascular Wilt Pathogens of Tomato · 2017 · compared with sterile compost substrates

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Washing composted soils with excess water before nematode inoculation led to better tomato plant growth.

    Suppressive effects of composts against the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica on tomato · 2002

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Mean fruit fresh weight increased with each chromium increment.

    Effects of chromium on the nutrient element content and morphology of tomato · 1995

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    CGW was equivalent or superior to peat for tomato growth.

    Suitability of Composted Green Waste for Horticultural Uses · 1996 · compared with peat

    Opposite direction

659 papers more in this group

See all 668 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.