Abstract
To evaluate the potential elicitor of homeopathic preparations on bean plants cv Carioca, homeopathics of Corymbia citriodora, Calcarea carbonica, Silicea and Sulphur in dynamisations 12, 24, 30 and 60CH were applied by pulverization throughout the aerial part. Samples of leaf tissue were taken at 6, 12, 24, 48 and 126 h after the treatment (HAT) to analyze the activity of peroxidase (POX), catalase (CAT), chitinase (CHI) and b-1.3-glucanase (GLU), and fifteen days after the application for the total contents of chlorophyll a and b. For the induction of phytoalexin phaseolin, seeds of the same genotype were germinated in the presence of respective treatments, and the production of phytoalexin quantified spectrophotometrically. All treatments increased the activity of POX, CAT, QUI and GLU, in at least one of the schedules evaluated in comparison to the control. The treatments C. citriodora and C. carbonic did not alter the contents of chlorophyll but induced the accumulation of phaseolin. Silicea and Sulphur caused significant reduction in the levels of chlorophyll a and b. The induction values were superior to the trading inductor (harpin), indicating that these homeopathies may come to be utilized as elicitor treatments on bean plants. The results indicate the potential of the treatments applied in the induction of biochemical mechanisms of defense in the bean plants. Key words: Resistance induction, homeopathy, enzymes, phytoalexins.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
All preparations increased defense enzyme activity at one or more sampled times versus control.
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“All treatments increased the activity of POX, CAT, QUI and GLU, in at least one of the schedules evaluated in comparison to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
C. citriodora preparation did not alter chlorophyll content.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“The treatments C. citriodora and C. carbonic did not alter the contents of chlorophyll but induced the accumulation of phaseolin.”
Claim · model-written summary
C. carbonic preparation did not alter chlorophyll content.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“The treatments C. citriodora and C. carbonic did not alter the contents of chlorophyll but induced the accumulation of phaseolin.”
Claim · model-written summary
C. citriodora induced phaseolin accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“The treatments C. citriodora and C. carbonic did not alter the contents of chlorophyll but induced the accumulation of phaseolin.”
Claim · model-written summary
C. carbonic induced phaseolin accumulation.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“The treatments C. citriodora and C. carbonic did not alter the contents of chlorophyll but induced the accumulation of phaseolin.”
Claim · model-written summary
Silicea significantly reduced chlorophyll a and b levels.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“Silicea and Sulphur caused significant reduction in the levels of chlorophyll a and b.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sulphur significantly reduced chlorophyll a and b levels.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“Silicea and Sulphur caused significant reduction in the levels of chlorophyll a and b.”
Claim · model-written summary
The homeopathic preparations gave greater induction than harpin.
Verbatim
e0“bean plants cv Carioca”
e1“The induction values were superior to the trading inductor (harpin)”
e2“homeopathics of Corymbia citriodora, Calcarea carbonica, Silicea and Sulphur”
The same questions in other papers
sulfur atom · physiology: pigments · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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.