Abstract
Zinc deficiency affects one third of the population and a possible solution is the agronomic biofortification of vegetables. Due to the increased consumption of arugula, this vegetable has good potential of use; however, there are few researches on the subject. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of foliar zinc applications, at different times, on physiological, yield, nutritional, and biofortification parameters of the ‘Broad Leaf’ arugula. Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment. It was observed that there was no effect of the application on the physiological variables, as well as on the height, leaf area, and fresh mass of aerial parts of the plant. Zn sprayings affected the N contents, while for Mn, P, Cu, and Fe, no significant effects were found. It was verified that with the application of 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn made at 25 days after emergence, a higher Zn content was obtained in the arugula leaves, representing an increase of 279% in relation to the control, showing the effectiveness of foliar zinc applications as an agronomic biofortification strategy for arugula.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar zinc applications had no effect on the physiological variables of arugula compared with the control treatment.
- Taxon
- arugula
Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0 - Material
- Broad Leafe0
- Treatment
- foliar zinc applicationse0
- Outcome
- physiological variablese2
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Comparator
- control treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e0“evaluate the effect of foliar zinc applications, at different times, on physiological, yield, nutritional, and biofortification parameters of the ‘Broad Leaf’ arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e2“there was no effect of the application on the physiological variables, as well as on the height, leaf area, and fresh mass of aerial parts of the plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar zinc applications had no effect on the height and leaf area of arugula compared with the control treatment.
- Taxon
- arugulaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0
- Treatment
- foliar zinc applicationse0
- Outcome
- height, leaf areae2
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Comparator
- control treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e0“evaluate the effect of foliar zinc applications, at different times, on physiological, yield, nutritional, and biofortification parameters of the ‘Broad Leaf’ arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e2“there was no effect of the application on the physiological variables, as well as on the height, leaf area, and fresh mass of aerial parts of the plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar zinc applications had no effect on the fresh mass of aerial parts of arugula compared with the control treatment.
- Taxon
- arugulaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0
- Organ / stage
- aerial partse2
- Treatment
- foliar zinc applicationse0
- Outcome
- fresh mass of aerial partse2
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Comparator
- control treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e0“evaluate the effect of foliar zinc applications, at different times, on physiological, yield, nutritional, and biofortification parameters of the ‘Broad Leaf’ arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e2“there was no effect of the application on the physiological variables, as well as on the height, leaf area, and fresh mass of aerial parts of the plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Zn sprayings affected the N contents of arugula.
- Taxon
- arugulaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0
- Treatment
- Zn sprayingse3
- Outcome
- N contentse3
- Comparator
- control treatmente1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e3“Zn sprayings affected the N contents, while for Mn, P, Cu, and Fe, no significant effects were found”
Claim · model-written summary
Zn sprayings had no significant effect on Mn, P and Cu contents of arugula.
- Taxon
- arugulaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0
- Treatment
- Zn sprayingse3
- Outcome
- Mn, P, Cue3
- Direction
- no significant effectse3
- Comparator
- control treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e3“Zn sprayings affected the N contents, while for Mn, P, Cu, and Fe, no significant effects were found”
Claim · model-written summary
Zn sprayings had no significant effect on Fe contents of arugula.
- Taxon
- arugulaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0
- Treatment
- Zn sprayingse3
- Outcome
- Fee3
- Direction
- no significant effectse3
- Comparator
- control treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e3“Zn sprayings affected the N contents, while for Mn, P, Cu, and Fe, no significant effects were found”
Claim · model-written summary
Zn application of 1.5 kg ha-1 at 25 days after emergence increased Zn content in arugula leaves by 279% relative to the control.
- Taxon
- arugulaEruca vesicaria subsp. sativat0
- Organ / stage
- arugula leavese4
- Treatment
- 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn made at 25 days after emergencee4
- Outcome
- Zn contente4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 279%e4
- Comparator
- controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“agronomic biofortification of arugula”
e1“Three doses (0.5, 1, and 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn) were evaluated at five times (15; 20; 25; 15 and 20; and 15, 20 and 25 days after emergence) and a control treatment”
e4“with the application of 1.5 kg ha-1 Zn made at 25 days after emergence, a higher Zn content was obtained in the arugula leaves, representing an increase of 279% in relation to the control”
The same questions in other papers
zinc atom · nutrient: content · Eruca vesicariaPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
zinc atom · growth · Eruca vesicariaPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
application · growth · Eruca vesicariaPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
application · nutrient: content · Eruca vesicariaPositive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- 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.