Paper · 2016 · OALib

Response of the Saladette Tomato of Growth Determinate to Different Sources and Doses of Calcium in Greenhouse

Heidi Melania Medina Montenegro; Vicente Alvarez Mares; Leopoldo Partida Ruvalcaba; et al.

3
claims
5
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

To determine the efficacy of formulations Ca(NO 3 ) 2 liq, Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-1, Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-2 and Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-3, as well as the most appropriate dose of each formulation to induce the growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), the research was conducted in greenhouses, to transplanting a plant per plastic pot with capacity of 12 L, which were applied 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16 and 15 Lha -1 of solution of each formulation more Steiner solution. The experimental design was randomized complete block with three replicates per treatment. The best answer tomato was achieved with Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lq, followed by that seen with Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-1 source, but the best effect on fruit yield and dry weight of the same was observed with the dose of 15 Lha -1 of Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lq and Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-3, while Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-2 and Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-1 best were the 16 and 17 Lha -1 . In all cases of calcium sources, doses that better effect resulted in the growth and fruit yield were lower that the recommended commercially, indicating that for growing saladette tomato variety Rio Grande should use a dose lower that the recommended to meet the objectives of agricultural sustainability, for the conservation and improvement of natural resources (in this case the soil and tomato plants) and improving the environment.

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 3

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid calcium nitrate gave the best overall tomato response.

Treatment
Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lqe0
Outcome
best answere0
Direction
beste0

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 best answer tomato was achieved with Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lq, followed by that seen with Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-1 source”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–667 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A 15 Lha -1 dose of liquid calcium nitrate gave the best fruit yield and dry weight.

Treatment
15 Lha -1 of Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lqe0
Outcome
fruit yield and dry weighte0
Direction
beste0

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

“best effect on fruit yield and dry weight of the same was observed with the dose of 15 Lha -1 of Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lq”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–788 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 26–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Calcium nitrate sol-3 gave best fruit response at 15 Lha -1.

Treatment
Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-3e0
Outcome
15 Lha -1e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“15 Lha -1 of Ca(NO 3 ) 2 lq and Ca(NO 3 ) 2 sol-3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 761–810 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 26–32 · show in text ↑

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 paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

75 papers more in this group

See all 79 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.