Paper · 1996 · HortTechnology

Soil Moisture and Cultivar Influence Cracking, Blossom-end Rot, Zippers, and Yield of Staked Fresh-market Tomatoes

Wade J. Sperry; Jeanine M. Davis; Douglas C. Sanders

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
24
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Two crack-resistant and two crack-susceptible fresh-market tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars were evaluated at varied soil moisture levels for physiological fruit defects and yield. Cultural practices recommended for staked-tomato production in North Carolina with raised beds, black polyethylene mulch, and drip irrigation were used. Soil moisture levels of less than −15.0, −30 to −40, and greater than −70 kPa were maintained and monitored using daily tensiometer readings. Soil moisture level had no effect on fruit cracking, blossom-end rot, zippers, or yield. However, there-were large differences among cultivars for fruit defects and total and marketable yields.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil moisture level had no effect on fruit cracking, blossom-end rot or zippers in fresh-market tomato.

Treatment
Soil moisture levele1
Outcome
fruit cracking, blossom-end rot, zipperse1
Direction
no effecte1

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

“fresh-market tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 46–65 · show in text ↑
e1

“Soil moisture level had no effect on fruit cracking, blossom-end rot, zippers, or yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 493–580 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil moisture level had no effect on yield of fresh-market tomato.

Treatment
Soil moisture levele1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
no effecte1

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

“fresh-market tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 46–65 · show in text ↑
e1

“Soil moisture level had no effect on fruit cracking, blossom-end rot, zippers, or yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 493–580 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato cultivars differed greatly in fruit defects and in total and marketable yields.

Material
cultivarse2
Outcome
fruit defects and total and marketable yieldse2
Direction
large differencese2

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

“fresh-market tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 46–65 · show in text ↑
e2

“there-were large differences among cultivars for fruit defects and total and marketable yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 591–685 · show in text ↑

soil water · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ

20 papers: 12 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

soil water · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

4 papers: 0 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 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.