Abstract
Adequate nutritional status is fundamental for the fruiting process of mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.). In this context, plant biostimulants are substances that promote physiological and nutritional changes, benefiting production. The present study evaluated the effect of biostimulants on the nutritional status and fruit production of ‘Kent’ mango trees. The experiment was carried out in the Brazilian semiarid region over 2 consecutive years, 2016 and 2017. Leaf treatments with biostimulants were applied in three phases (preflowering, beginning of flowering, and full flowering) during both seasons. The treatments were as follows: T1) control (without biostimulants); T2) biostimulants containing nutrients and L-α-amino acids; T3) biostimulants containing nutrients and Lithothamnium algae extract; T4) biostimulants containing nutrients and sucrose; and T5) biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extract. The results show that there was no effect of the biostimulants for chlorophyll a , b , and total indices or for total leaf soluble carbohydrates. Some of the treatments affected the leaf concentrations of N, K, Mn, Fe, and Zn, whereas only T2 in 2016 and T5 in 2017 increased the number of fruits per panicle if compared with nontreated plants. In 2016, the production per tree was higher in T5 compared with the other treatments, whereas it was greater in 2017 in both T2 and T5 with increases of 37.4 and 23.1 kg per tree, respectively, compared with the control treatment. Biostimulants containing soluble nutrients, L-α-amino acids, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extract benefit the nutritional status and increase the fruit production of mango ‘Kent’.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Biostimulants did not affect chlorophyll indices or leaf soluble carbohydrates.
- Taxon
- mango
_from_India.jpg?width=60)
Mangifera indicae1 - Treatment
- biostimulantse0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll a , b , and total indices or for total leaf soluble carbohydratese0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_from_India.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“no effect of the biostimulants for chlorophyll a , b , and total indices or for total leaf soluble carbohydrates”
e1“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Some biostimulant treatments changed leaf N, K, Mn, Fe, and Zn concentrations.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae1
- Treatment
- Some of the treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf concentrations of N, K, Mn, Fe, and Zne0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Some of the treatments affected the leaf concentrations of N, K, Mn, Fe, and Zn”
e1“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 increased fruits per panicle in 2016 compared with untreated mango trees.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae2
- Treatment
- biostimulants containing nutrients and L-α-amino acidse1
- Outcome
- number of fruits per paniclee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 2016e0
- Comparator
- nontreated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only T2 in 2016 and T5 in 2017 increased the number of fruits per panicle if compared with nontreated plants”
e1“biostimulants containing nutrients and L-α-amino acids”
e2“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
T5 increased fruits per panicle in 2017 compared with untreated mango trees.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae2
- Treatment
- biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extracte1
- Outcome
- number of fruits per paniclee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 2017e0
- Comparator
- nontreated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only T2 in 2016 and T5 in 2017 increased the number of fruits per panicle if compared with nontreated plants”
e1“biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extract”
e2“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
T5 had higher production per tree than the other treatments in 2016.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae2
- Treatment
- biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extracte1
- Outcome
- production per treee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 2016e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2016, the production per tree was higher in T5 compared with the other treatments”
e1“biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extract”
e2“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
T2 raised 2017 production per tree by 37.4 kg versus control.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae2
- Treatment
- biostimulants containing nutrients and L-α-amino acidse1
- Outcome
- production per treee3
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 37.4e0
- Qualifier
- 2017e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was greater in 2017 in both T2 and T5 with increases of 37.4 and 23.1 kg per tree, respectively, compared with the control treatment”
e1“biostimulants containing nutrients and L-α-amino acids”
e2“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
e3“production per tree was higher”
Claim · model-written summary
T5 raised 2017 production per tree by 23.1 kg versus control.
- Taxon
- mangoMangifera indicae2
- Treatment
- biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extracte1
- Outcome
- production per treee3
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 23.1 kg per treee0
- Qualifier
- 2017e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it was greater in 2017 in both T2 and T5 with increases of 37.4 and 23.1 kg per tree, respectively, compared with the control treatment”
e1“biostimulants containing nutrients, free amino acids, and Lithothamnium algae extract”
e2“mango trees ( Mangifera indica L.)”
e3“production per tree was higher”
The same questions in other papers
other · physiology: pigments · Mangifera indica (mango)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
botanical · yield · Mangifera indica (mango)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →other · yield · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.