Abstract
The aim of this research is to determine the physiological responses of tomato seedlings treated with 24-epibrassinolide (EBL), given via different methods such as immersion, irrigation, and foliar spray, followed by inoculation of root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White, 1919) Chitwood, 1949 (Tylenchida: Meloidogynidae). Physiological measurements (chlorophyll, flavonols, nitrogen balance index, and anthocyanins) were carried out non-destructively with a portable chlorophyll meter at the end of the 56th days post inoculation. Results showed that chlorophyll contents of the tomato leaves were affected by both the EBL applications and the methods, and that they were better protected with the irrigation method. Flavonols and nitrogen balance index were inversely related with the method. Leaf anthocyanin index was affected just by the EBL applications. Depending on the physiological aspect under observation, the method (immersion against irrigation, for instance) might present a challenging status in terms of evoking protection against root-knot nematode when tomato plants are treated with EBL.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
EBL application and method affected tomato leaf chlorophyll.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- EBL applicationse0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitat0pest - Outcome
- chlorophyll contentse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“chlorophyll contents of the tomato leaves were affected by both the EBL applications and the methods”
t0“Meloidogyne incognita”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation better protected tomato leaf chlorophyll.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- irrigation methode0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pest
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contentse0
- Direction
- better protectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chlorophyll contents of the tomato leaves were affected by both the EBL applications and the methods, and that they were better protected with the irrigation method”
t0“Meloidogyne incognita”
Claim · model-written summary
Flavonols related inversely to application method.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- methode0
- Outcome
- Flavonolse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flavonols and nitrogen balance index were inversely related with the method”
t0“Tomato Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen balance index related inversely to application method.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- methode0
- Outcome
- nitrogen balance indexe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flavonols and nitrogen balance index were inversely related with the method”
t0“Tomato Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Only EBL application affected tomato leaf anthocyanin index.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- EBL applicationse0
- Outcome
- Leaf anthocyanin indexe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf anthocyanin index was affected just by the EBL applications”
t0“Tomato Seedlings”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- 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.