Abstract
SummaryInfluence of the source-sink balance on the final quality of tomato was investigated in spring greenhouse production. Four treatments were compared differing by the fruit/leaf number ratio manipulated during either the cell division or the cell elongation periods of the sixth truss. At maturity, quality was assessed through fruit colour, firmness, fresh weight, titratable acidity, refractive index, and contents of dry matter, reducing sugars, (3-carotene, lycopene and C vitamin. (3-carotene and lycopene contents were correlated positively to each other, and negatively to fruit firmness. The refractive index, dry-matter and sugar contents were also positively correlated, but less under low competition during cell division. Fruit fresh weight was correlated with none of the qualitative parameters, and significantly differed among fruits within the sixth truss; however this relied only on the difference between the first fruit and the following ones. Fruit composition did not vary among basal and tip fruits, but significantly depended on the fruit/leaf ratio. Low competition during the whole fruit development promoted sugar, acid and carotenoid contents, indicating a general increase in fruit metabolism, though fruits were not significantly bigger. Decreasing the competition during the cell elongation period tended to decrease the fruit dry-matter content and increase the acid content, whereas affecting the competition only during the cell division period hardly influenced the fruit composition. On the whole, results indicated that drastic removal of fruits may have inhibited the source activity at a period of low sink demand. In contrast to fruit composition and fruit size, other physical quality traits (firmness and colour) were only slightly affected by the source-sink ratio.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Beta-carotene and lycopene contents were positively correlated.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Outcome
- (3-carotene and lycopene contentse0
- Direction
- positivelye0
- Comparator
- each othere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(3-carotene and lycopene contents were correlated positively to each other”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Carotenoid contents were negatively correlated with fruit firmness.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- (3-carotene and lycopene contentse0
- Direction
- negativelye0
- Comparator
- fruit firmnesse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(3-carotene and lycopene contents were correlated positively to each other, and negatively to fruit firmness”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Refractive index, dry matter and sugar contents were positively correlated, less so under low cell-division competition.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Organ / stage
- cell divisione0
- Outcome
- refractive index, dry-matter and sugar contentse0
- Direction
- positively correlatede0
- Qualifier
- less under low competition during cell divisione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The refractive index, dry-matter and sugar contents were also positively correlated, but less under low competition during cell division”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit fresh weight had no correlation with qualitative parameters.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- Fruit fresh weighte0
- Direction
- correlated with nonee0
- Comparator
- qualitative parameterse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit fresh weight was correlated with none of the qualitative parameters”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit fresh weight differed within the sixth truss, driven by first versus later fruits.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Organ / stage
- sixth trusse0
- Outcome
- Fruit fresh weighte1
- Direction
- differede0
- Comparator
- first fruit and the following onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly differed among fruits within the sixth truss; however this relied only on the difference between the first fruit and the following ones”
e1“Fruit fresh weight”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit composition did not vary between basal and tip fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- Fruit compositione0
- Direction
- did not varye0
- Comparator
- basal and tip fruitse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit composition did not vary among basal and tip fruits”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit composition depended significantly on the fruit/leaf ratio.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- fruit/leaf ratioe0
- Outcome
- Fruit compositione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit composition did not vary among basal and tip fruits, but significantly depended on the fruit/leaf ratio”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Low competition throughout fruit development increased sugars, acids and carotenoids.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Low competition during the whole fruit developmente0
- Outcome
- sugar, acid and carotenoid contentse0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Low competition during the whole fruit development promoted sugar, acid and carotenoid contents”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Low competition did not significantly increase fruit size.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Low competition during the whole fruit developmente1
- Outcome
- fruitse0
- Direction
- not significantly biggere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“though fruits were not significantly bigger”
e1“Low competition during the whole fruit development”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced competition during cell elongation tended to lower dry matter.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Decreasing the competition during the cell elongation periode0
- Outcome
- fruit dry-matter contente0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Decreasing the competition during the cell elongation period tended to decrease the fruit dry-matter content”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced competition during cell elongation tended to raise acid content.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Decreasing the competition during the cell elongation periode0
- Outcome
- acid contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Decreasing the competition during the cell elongation period tended to decrease the fruit dry-matter content and increase the acid content”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Changing competition only during cell division barely affected fruit composition.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- affecting the competition only during the cell division periode0
- Outcome
- fruit compositione0
- Direction
- hardly influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“affecting the competition only during the cell division period hardly influenced the fruit composition”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors suggested drastic fruit removal may inhibit source activity at low sink demand.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- drastic removal of fruitse0
- Outcome
- source activitye0
- Qualifier
- at a period of low sink demande0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drastic removal of fruits may have inhibited the source activity at a period of low sink demand”
t0“tomato quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Source-sink ratio affected fruit firmness and colour only slightly.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- source-sink ratioe0
- Outcome
- firmness and coloure0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“other physical quality traits (firmness and colour) were only slightly affected by the source-sink ratio”
t0“tomato quality”
The same questions in other papers
competition · molecular: metabolites · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
competition · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.