Abstract
Stomatal density of pods and leaves were determined for six commercial snap bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L. `Evergreen', `Hystyle', Labrador', `Tenderlake', `Top Crop', and `Venture') grown at three planting dates, in an attempt to find morphological traits that could be related to cultivar differences in pod Ca concentration. Snap beans were planted three times at ≈1-week intervals beginning 15 June 1995, and harvested 59 to 62 days after planting. Stomatal counts were performed using a microscope linked to a video camera, and Ca concentration determinations were made using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Calcium concentration and stomatal density of leaf tissue was higher than that of pods. Cultivar differences for pod Ca concentration ( P = 0.001) and stomatal density ( P = 0.001) were observed although cultivars with higher pod stomatal density did not necessarily result in higher pod Ca concentration. Calcium concentration and stomatal density for leaves did not differ among cultivars. Stomatal density and Ca concentration of pods were positively correlated ( R 2 = 0.37), while pod maturity was negatively associated to both pod Ca concentration ( R 2 = 0.93), and pod stomatal density ( R 2 = 0.99). The effect of planting dates was absent in pod Ca concentration and significant in pod stomatal density.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Leaves had higher calcium concentration than pods.
Verbatim
e0“Calcium concentration and stomatal density of leaf tissue was higher than that of pods”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaves had higher stomatal density than pods.
Verbatim
e0“Calcium concentration and stomatal density of leaf tissue was higher than that of pods”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod calcium concentration differed among cultivars.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Cultivar differences for pod Ca concentration ( P = 0.001) and stomatal density ( P = 0.001) were observed”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod stomatal density differed among cultivars.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Cultivar differences for pod Ca concentration ( P = 0.001) and stomatal density ( P = 0.001) were observed”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher pod stomatal density did not necessarily imply higher pod calcium concentration.
Verbatim
e0“cultivars with higher pod stomatal density did not necessarily result in higher pod Ca concentration”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf calcium concentration did not differ among cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Calcium concentration and stomatal density for leaves did not differ among cultivars”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf stomatal density did not differ among cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Calcium concentration and stomatal density for leaves did not differ among cultivars”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod stomatal density correlated positively with pod calcium concentration, R2 0.37.
Verbatim
e0“Stomatal density and Ca concentration of pods were positively correlated ( R 2 = 0.37)”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod maturity correlated negatively with pod calcium concentration, R2 0.93.
Verbatim
e0“pod maturity was negatively associated to both pod Ca concentration ( R 2 = 0.93)”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod maturity correlated negatively with pod stomatal density, R2 0.99.
Verbatim
e0“pod maturity was negatively associated to both pod Ca concentration ( R 2 = 0.93), and pod stomatal density ( R 2 = 0.99)”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting date had no effect on pod calcium concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The effect of planting dates was absent in pod Ca concentration and significant in pod stomatal density”
t0“Snap Bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting date significantly affected pod stomatal density, with direction unstated.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The effect of planting dates was absent in pod Ca concentration and significant in pod stomatal density”
t0“Snap Bean”
The same questions in other papers
sowing time · nutrient: content · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
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.