Abstract
Salinity currently affects more than 20% of agricultural land and is expected to pose potential challenges to land degradation and agricultural production in the future. It is a leading global abiotic stress that affects general plants and cultivated crops adversely. The utilization of biostimulants can enhance the efficiency of plant nutrition, facilitate the uptake of nutrients, boost crop yield, improve the quality characteristics of fruits and enhance plants’ ability to withstand abiotic stresses. Biostimulants serve as a vital reservoir of macro- and microelements and plant hormones, such as auxins, cytokinins and gibberellins. Therefore, the current study was conducted to examine the effect of the foliar application of some biostimulants on relieving the side effects of salinity on olive trees (Olea europaea) cv. Kalamata. The olive trees were sprayed three times with moringa leaf aqueous extract (MLE) at 2, 4 and 6%, seaweed extract (SWE) at 1000, 2000 and 3000 ppm and their combinations: 2% MLE + 1000 ppm SWE (combination 1), 4% MLE + 2000 ppm SWE (combination 2) and 6% MLE + 3000 ppm SWE (combination 3). The results revealed that the application of biostimulants had a beneficial effect on the overall growth and development of olive trees, surpassing the performance of untreated trees. Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients. Furthermore, the combined application of MLE and SWE resulted in a greater effect when compared to using each one individually. In both seasons, combination 3 outperformed the other treatments that were applied.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Biostimulants improved overall olive growth and development relative to untreated trees.
- Taxon
- olive trees
Olea europaeae0 - Treatment
- application of biostimulantse0
- Outcome
- overall growth and developmente0
- Direction
- surpassinge0
- Comparator
- untreated treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of biostimulants had a beneficial effect on the overall growth and development of olive trees, surpassing the performance of untreated trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased leaf chlorophyll content in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- leaf chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased flower number in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- flower numbere0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased fruit set percentages in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- fruit set percentagese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased fruit yields in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased fruit oil content in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- fruit oil contente0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased fruit firmness in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- fruit firmnesse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased total soluble solid (TSS) percentage in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- total soluble solid (TSS) percentagee0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying MLE and SWE increased leaf macro- and micronutrients in olive trees.
- Taxon
- olive treeOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- Spraying MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- leaf macro- and micronutrientse0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying MLE and SWE, particularly at concentrations of 6% and 3000 ppm, respectively, significantly enhanced various aspects of olive tree performance. Notably, there were significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content, flower number, fruit set percentages, fruit yields, fruit oil content, fruit firmness, total soluble solid (TSS) percentage and leaf macro- and micronutrients.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined MLE and SWE had greater effects than either applied alone.
- Taxon
- OliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- combined application of MLE and SWEe0
- Outcome
- greater effecte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- using each one individuallye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combined application of MLE and SWE resulted in a greater effect when compared to using each one individually”
t0“Olive (Olea europaea L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combination 3 outperformed other treatments in both seasons.
- Taxon
- OliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- combination 3e0
- Outcome
- outperformede0
- Direction
- outperformede0
- Qualifier
- both seasonse0
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both seasons, combination 3 outperformed the other treatments that were applied.”
t0“Olive (Olea europaea L.)”
The same questions in other papers
other · molecular: metabolites · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
botanical · molecular: metabolites · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
other · quality: oil · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · phenology · Olea europaea (common olive)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 · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →application · quality: oil · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →application · molecular: metabolites · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →application · physiology: pigments · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →8 of 20 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.