Abstract
The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California. In 1999, processing tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Halley) transplants were obtained from a number of commercial transplant producers and taken to the Univ. of California-Davis (UCD) where treatments were imposed for 1 week prior to transplanting. Treatments included N and P fertilization, exposure to lath house or greenhouse temperature, withholding water, and storage in the dark for 2 days to simulate shipment from greenhouse to field. Nine treatments per site were compared in field trials at Yolo, Woodland, and Knights Landing. In 2000, transplants were grown at UCD under varying nutrient regimes, including P fertilization rates ranging from weekly application of 0 to 90 mg·L -1 . Two commercial field trials comparing 8 treatments were conducted near Winters and Newman. Although transplant production and handling practices significantly influenced relative growth rate in the 3-4 weeks following transplanting in all 1999 trials, effects on fruit yield were minimal, with only one treatment at Woodland showing significantly lower yield and no treatment differences in crop maturity, fruit soluble solids, or juice color observed at any site. In 2000, plants receiving no weekly P fertilization showed slower growth in the 3 weeks after transplanting, but no treatment differences were observed after 6 weeks. Fruit yield, soluble solids content (°Brix) and juice color were unaffected by transplant treatment. We conclude that transplant production and handling practices tested had minimal differential effect on the subsequent field performance of processing tomato transplants in the Central Valley of California.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
In 1999, transplant production and handling practices significantly influenced relative growth rate in the 3-4 weeks after transplanting in all trials.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- transplant production and handling practicese2
- Outcome
- relative growth ratee2
- Qualifier
- in the 3-4 weeks following transplantinge2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e2“transplant production and handling practices significantly influenced relative growth rate in the 3-4 weeks following transplanting in all 1999 trials”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1999, transplant production and handling practices had minimal effects on processing tomato fruit yield.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- transplant production and handling practicese0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde3
- Setting
- Californiae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e3“effects on fruit yield were minimal”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1999 at Woodland, one transplant treatment significantly lowered processing tomato yield.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- only one treatment at Woodlande4
- Outcome
- yielde4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Setting
- Woodlande4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e4“only one treatment at Woodland showing significantly lower yield”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, plants receiving no weekly P fertilization showed slower growth in the 3 weeks after transplanting.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- no weekly P fertilizatione5
- Outcome
- growthe5
- Direction
- slowere5
- Qualifier
- in the 3 weeks after transplantinge5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e5“plants receiving no weekly P fertilization showed slower growth in the 3 weeks after transplanting, but no treatment differences were observed after 6 weeks”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, no treatment differences in processing tomato growth were observed after 6 weeks.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- weekly P fertilizatione5
- Outcome
- growthe5
- Direction
- no treatment differencese5
- Qualifier
- after 6 weekse5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e5“plants receiving no weekly P fertilization showed slower growth in the 3 weeks after transplanting, but no treatment differences were observed after 6 weeks”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2000, transplant treatment did not change processing tomato fruit yield, soluble solids content or juice color.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- transplant treatmente6
- Outcome
- Fruit yield, soluble solids content (°Brix) and juice colore6
- Direction
- unaffectede6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e6“Fruit yield, soluble solids content (°Brix) and juice color were unaffected by transplant treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1999, no treatment differences occurred in processing tomato crop maturity, fruit soluble solids or juice color at any site.
- Taxon
- processing tomatoe0
- Treatment
- transplant production and handling practicese0
- Outcome
- crop maturity, fruit soluble solids, or juice colore7
- Direction
- no treatment differencese7
- Qualifier
- at any sitee7
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of transplant production and handling practices on processing tomato growth, yield, and fruit quality were evaluated in five field trials in California”
e7“no treatment differences in crop maturity, fruit soluble solids, or juice color observed at any site”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →transplanting · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →fertilization · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
100 papers in the same direction as this paper · 567 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
664 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.