Abstract
Tomato and pepper transplants were grown in an environment with a high red to far-red light ratio, to determine if this was an effective method for controlling plant height. This light environment was provided by placing plants under copper sulfate filters, which absorb most of the light in the far-red region of the spectrum. Copper sulfate solutions were 4%, 8%, and 16% w/v. Tomato transplants grown under the filters were approximately 40% shorter than control plants, had less dry weight and leaf area, and increased leaf chlorophyll. Leaf number data was less clearly affected. Differences were not observed among the three different CuSO 4 concentrations. Similar results were observed for peppers. Field trials on tomatoes indicated that total yield, earliness of fruiting, and fruit quality were not affected by growing transplants under the CUSO 4 filters.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Filtered tomato transplants were approximately 40% shorter than controls.
- Taxon
- Tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- under the filterse0
- Outcome
- transplantse0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- 40%e0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato transplants grown under the filters were approximately 40% shorter than control plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Filtered tomato transplants had lower dry weight and leaf area.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- under the filterse0
- Outcome
- dry weight and leaf areae0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato transplants grown under the filters were approximately 40% shorter than control plants, had less dry weight and leaf area”
Claim · model-written summary
Filtered tomato transplants had more leaf chlorophyll.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- under the filterse0
- Outcome
- leaf chlorophylle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato transplants grown under the filters were approximately 40% shorter than control plants, had less dry weight and leaf area, and increased leaf chlorophyll”
Claim · model-written summary
Filter concentration did not produce observed differences.
- Treatment
- CuSO 4 concentrationse0
- Outcome
- Differencese0
- Direction
- not observede0
- Comparator
- three different CuSO 4 concentrationse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Differences were not observed among the three different CuSO 4 concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Pepper transplants showed similar responses to the filters.
- Outcome
- Similar resultse0
CapsicumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similar results were observed for peppers”
Claim · model-written summary
Filtered tomato transplants did not change total field yield, earliness or fruit quality.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- growing transplants under the CUSO 4 filterse0
- Outcome
- total yield, earliness of fruiting, and fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Setting
- Field trialse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field trials on tomatoes indicated that total yield, earliness of fruiting, and fruit quality were not affected by growing transplants under the CUSO 4 filters”
The same questions in other papers
transplanting · quality: grain · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- 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.