Paper · 2021 · Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture)

Impact Of A Mycorrhizal Inoculum On Tomato And Pepper Organic Production: A Transdisciplinary Approach In Northern Italian Context

Philipp Oggiano; Natalia Rastorgueva; Alieksei Taran; et al.

4
claims
11
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

"The paper explores the impact of a mycorrhizal with microbial consortium inoculum on a tomato and bell pepper production, considering agronomic and qualitative parameters and sensory performance. The research was conducted in summer 2019 at the garden of the University of Gastronomic Sciences (Italy), which uses organic practicties.Two varieties of tomatoes (“Costoluto” and “Cuore di Bue”) and one variety of bell pepper (“Quadrato di Carmagnola”) were cultivated in the greenhouse, comparing mycorrhizae (M) versus control (C) samples. Analyses included: quantitative analysis on fruits, qualitative analysis (pH, Brix measurements and NIRS on fruits) and sensory evaluations of tomatoes. Results show: a clear diversification of M versus C from NIR; a negative impact of the mycorrhizal inoculum on the quantitative yield; minimal perceivable differences between M and C in sensorial analysis, which did not negatively affect preferences."

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.

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 4

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal samples of tomato and bell pepper were clearly differentiated from controls by NIR.

Treatment
mycorrhizae (M)e1
Interactor
mycorrhizaee1symbiont
Outcome
clear diversification of M versus C from NIRe0
Comparator
control (C) samplese1
Setting
greenhousee1

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

“Results show: a clear diversification of M versus C from NIR;”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–755 · show in text ↑
e1

“Two varieties of tomatoes (“Costoluto” and “Cuore di Bue”) and one variety of bell pepper (“Quadrato di Carmagnola”) were cultivated in the greenhouse, comparing mycorrhizae (M) versus control (C) samples.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 335–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal inoculum reduced quantitative yield in tomato and bell pepper.

Taxon
tomato and bell peppere1
Treatment
mycorrhizal inoculume0
Interactor
mycorrhizaee2symbiont
Outcome
quantitative yielde0
Direction
negative impacte0
Comparator
control (C) samplese2

Verbatim

e0

“a negative impact of the mycorrhizal inoculum on the quantitative yield;”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–828 · show in text ↑
e1

“tomato and bell pepper production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–121 · show in text ↑
e2

“mycorrhizae (M) versus control (C) samples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 497–539 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal inoculum produced minimal perceivable sensory differences in tomatoes relative to controls.

Treatment
mycorrhizae (M)e2
Interactor
mycorrhizaee2symbiont
Outcome
sensorial analysise0
Direction
minimal perceivable differencese0
Comparator
control (C) samplese2

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

“minimal perceivable differences between M and C in sensorial analysis, which did not negatively affect preferences.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 829–944 · show in text ↑
e1

“sensory evaluations of tomatoes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 661–693 · show in text ↑
e2

“mycorrhizae (M) versus control (C) samples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 497–539 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sensory differences in tomatoes with mycorrhizae did not negatively affect preferences.

Treatment
mycorrhizae (M)e2
Interactor
mycorrhizaee2symbiont
Outcome
preferencese0
Direction
did not negatively affecte0
Comparator
control (C) samplese2

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

“minimal perceivable differences between M and C in sensorial analysis, which did not negatively affect preferences.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 829–944 · show in text ↑
e1

“sensory evaluations of tomatoes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 661–693 · show in text ↑
e2

“mycorrhizae (M) versus control (C) samples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 497–539 · show in text ↑

mycorrhiza · yield · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Results differ

22 papers: 21 positive, 1 negative or no effect

21 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

inoculation · yield · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Results differ

37 papers: 34 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 papers →

mycorrhiza · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ

65 papers: 59 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 59 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

61 papers more in this group

See all 65 papers →

inoculation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

201 papers: 172 positive, 29 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 172 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

197 papers more in this group

See all 201 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.