Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Calcium soil amendment increased tomato yield by 18.7% compared with the control treatment.

A claim from Application of calcium soil amendment in greenhouse tomato production. · 2009

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Calcium soil amendment increased tomato yield by 18.7% compared with the control treatment.

Treatment
increasing application of calcium soil amendmente2
Outcome
yield of tomatoe3
Direction
increasede3
Value
18.7 %e3
Comparator
control treatmente3

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

e2

“Results from field experiment showed that increasing application of calcium soil amendment could notably improve the yield and quality of tomato produced in greenhouse”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 407–574
e3

“Compared with the control treatment,the yield of tomato was increased by 18.7 % and the soluble solid content increased by 20.2 %,titratable acid reduced by 23.1 % and exchangeable calcium content was increased by 34.0 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 575–795

Title

Application of calcium soil amendment in greenhouse tomato production.

Jiang Jing-jing; Liu Qing-hua; Junliang Li; et al. Zhongguo shucai 2009

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-cef26995024252862dfb90a9996363f68c724624bbf16acfd73747b2ed016357 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

calcium atom · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ

79 papers: 67 positive, 12 negative or no effect

66 papers in the same direction as this claim · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Increasing nutrient solution salinity progressively reduced tomato fruit yield (fresh weight) compared with 3 mS cm-1 in rockwool.

    Effects of increasing the salinity of the nutrient solution with major nutrients or sodium chloride on the yield, quality and composition of tomatoes grown in rockwool · 1991 · compared with 3 mS cm-1

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Calcium and boron applications did not change total fruit yield.

    Blossom‐end rot and fruit cracking of tomato grown in net‐covered greenhouses in Central Thailand can partly be corrected by calcium and boron sprays · 2009

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Seeds from tomato plants given 100 mg Ca L‐1 were small, malformed and black.

    Occurrence of blossom‐end rot in tomato as a function of calcium dose in the nutrient solution and air relative humidity · 1998

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    N, K and Ca limitation did not affect Micro-Tom fruit yield.

    Metabolite profile of the tomato dwarf cultivar Micro‐Tom and comparative response to saline and nutritional stresses with regard to a commercial cultivar · 2015

    Opposite directionAbout lacking this nutrient, so it counts the other way round

  5. no effect
    K source, K rate and Ca rate did not influence early or total fruit yields at either location.

    POTASSIUM SOURCE AND RATE AND CALCIUM RATE EFFECTS ON TOMATO YIELD AND QUALITY. · 1990

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Calcium-treated tomato fruits had lower fresh weight at harvest.

    Preharvest calcium chloride application improves postharvest keeping quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) · 2015

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Foliar Ca sprays did not affect tomato yield significantly in the spring season.

    EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON TOMATO GROWING IN SUBSTRATE CULTURE · 2003 · compared with half day 2 and half day 6 dS.m-1

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Average fruit weight did not differ significantly between low and medium calcium treatments.

    Effects of Calcium on Yield and Incidence of Blossom-end Rot of Three Tomato Cultivars · 1996 · compared with low

    Opposite direction

70 papers more in this group

See all 79 papers →

other · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

130 papers: 117 positive, 13 negative or no effect

116 papers in the same direction as this claim · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
    HA had no significant effect on tomato fruit yield.

    Humic Substances Generally Ineffective in Improving Vegetable Crop Nutrient Uptake or Productivity · 2010

    Opposite direction

  2. no effect
    Neither amendment increased fruit yield in Marglobe.

    Effects of Soil Amendment on Bacterial Wilt Caused by Ralstonia Solanacerum and Tomato Yields in Ethiopia · 2011

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Chelate replacement caused no significant yield loss.

    Use of Humic Substances and Amino Acids to Enhance Iron Availability for Tomato Plants from Applications of the Chelate FeEDDHA · 2005

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    The positive impact of SSA alone on tomato crop performance was limited.

    Evaluating anaerobic soil disinfestation and other biological soil management strategies for open-field tomato production in Florida · 2018

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Because yield and fruit quality did not differ, no economic benefit of seaweed and fish powder can be inferred under the experimental conditions.

    Foliar-Applied Seaweed and Fish Powder Do Not Improve Yield and Fruit Quality of Organically Grown Processing Tomatoes · 2000

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Biochar amendment did not influence plant growth, crop yield or leaf mineral content of tomato.

    Short-term improvement of soil biological activity in biochar-amended organic greenhouse tomato crops · 2017

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Humic acid preparations 'Humintech' and 'Humentos' at 0.005% as leaf application had no influence on tomato yield under optimal growing conditions.

    Investigations to biological and organic treatments against pests in vegetable cultivation · 2018

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Biostimulant gains were not reflected in fruit yield, number or weight.

    Effect of Biostimulants on Drought Tolerance of Greenhouse-Grown Tomato · 2025

    Opposite direction

121 papers more in this group

See all 130 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.