Claim · model-written summary
CEC biomass did not differ after two cycles.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
- Setting
- CECe0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After two cycles of PRD in the CEC, biomass did not differ between PRD and control plants”
t0“Tomato”
t1“Tomato”
Title
Darren M. Mingo; Julian C. Theobald; Mark A. Bacon; et al. Functional Plant Biology 2004. doi:10.1071/fp04020
Other claims from this paper (7)
- Intervention effect Glasshouse total biomass did not differ after four PRD cycles.
- Intervention effect Glasshouse PRD increased root biomass 55%.
- Intervention effect CEC leaf water potential did not differ after either PRD cycle.
- Observation PRD stomatal conductance was 20% lower at the end than start of the first CEC cycle.
- Intervention effect CEC PRD raised root biomass 19% above controls.
- Association Root biomass promotion was associated with alternating wet and dry compartments.
- Observation Root biomass rose in rewatered compartments following soil drying.