Paper · 1987 · Journal of Plant Nutrition

Ion interactions in calcium‐efficient and calcium‐inefficient tomato lines1

Jean E. English; Allen V. Barker

10
claims
19
verbatim quotes
13
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Two Ca‐efficient and 3 Ca‐inefficient tomato lines selected on the basis of dry matter production, Ca concentrations in tissues, and severity of Ca deficiency symptoms were grown in nutrient solutions containing 6 levels of total Ca ranging from 15 to 365 mg in 70 mg increments. All lines responded to increased Ca supply by increasing in dry weight and by accumulating Ca. The critical Ca concentrations in the shoots were 0.25% and 0.40% on a dry weight basis for the efficient and inefficient lines, respectively. Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P, and NO3 ‐ were lower in shoots and except for Mg were lower in roots of efficient plants than in the inefficient plants. For all lines as more Ca was available in the media and as Ca increased in the shoots and roots, the concentrations of the nutrients other than Ca declined. The declines in concentrations of K and Mg were not due to dilution by higher dry matter production in the efficient lines relative to the inefficient ones, although the total accumulation of Ca, P, and NO3 ‐ did not vary with Ca supplied. Antagonism among cations may account for differences in efficiency among lines of tomato.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All lines gained dry weight with increased calcium supply.

Treatment
increased Ca supplye0
Outcome
dry weighte0
Direction
increasinge0

Not reportedComparator

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

“All lines responded to increased Ca supply by increasing in dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 289–359 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All lines accumulated more calcium with increased calcium supply.

Treatment
increased Ca supplye0
Outcome
accumulating Cae0
Direction
increasinge0

Not reportedComparator

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

“All lines responded to increased Ca supply by increasing in dry weight and by accumulating Ca.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 289–383 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Critical shoot calcium concentration was 0.25% in efficient lines.

Material
efficiente0
Organ / stage
shootse0
Outcome
critical Ca concentrations in the shootse0
Value
0.25%e0

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

“The critical Ca concentrations in the shoots were 0.25% and 0.40% on a dry weight basis for the efficient and inefficient lines, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–526 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Critical shoot calcium concentration was 0.40% in inefficient lines.

Material
inefficient linese0
Organ / stage
shootse0
Outcome
critical Ca concentrations in the shootse0
Value
0.40%e0

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

“The critical Ca concentrations in the shoots were 0.25% and 0.40% on a dry weight basis for the efficient and inefficient lines, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–526 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Efficient lines had lower shoot Ca, K, Mg, P and nitrate concentrations than inefficient lines.

Material
efficient plantse0
Organ / stage
shootse0
Outcome
Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P, and NO3 ‐e0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
inefficient plantse0

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

“Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P, and NO3 ‐ were lower in shoots and except for Mg were lower in roots of efficient plants than in the inefficient plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 527–679 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Efficient lines had lower root Ca, K, P and nitrate concentrations than inefficient lines.

Material
efficient plantse0
Organ / stage
rootse0
Outcome
Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P, and NO3 ‐e0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
except for Mge0
Comparator
inefficient plantse0

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

“Concentrations of Ca, K, Mg, P, and NO3 ‐ were lower in shoots and except for Mg were lower in roots of efficient plants than in the inefficient plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 527–679 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing calcium availability and tissue calcium accompanied declines in other nutrient concentrations.

Treatment
more Ca was available in the mediae0
Outcome
concentrations of the nutrients other than Cae0
Direction
declinede0

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

“For all lines as more Ca was available in the media and as Ca increased in the shoots and roots, the concentrations of the nutrients other than Ca declined.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–836 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Mechanismobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The K and Mg concentration declines were not explained by dilution from dry matter production.

Outcome
declines in concentrations of K and Mge0
Qualifier
not due to dilution by higher dry matter productione0

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

“The declines in concentrations of K and Mg were not due to dilution by higher dry matter production in the efficient lines relative to the inefficient ones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 837–992 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total Ca, P and nitrate accumulation did not vary with supplied calcium.

Treatment
Ca suppliede0
Outcome
total accumulation of Ca, P, and NO3 ‐e0
Direction
did not varye0

Not reportedComparator

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

“the total accumulation of Ca, P, and NO3 ‐ did not vary with Ca supplied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1003–1076 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 62–68 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest cation antagonism may explain calcium efficiency differences among lines.

Outcome
differences in efficiencye0
Qualifier
Antagonism among cationse0

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

“Antagonism among cations may account for differences in efficiency among lines of tomato.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1077–1166 · show in text ↑

calcium atom · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ

53 papers: 43 positive, 10 negative or no effect

42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

49 papers more in this group

See all 53 papers →

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

60 papers: 54 positive, 6 negative or no effect

53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

56 papers more in this group

See all 60 papers →

calcium atom · molecular: metabolites · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 16 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 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.