Abstract
When transplanting vegetable plants in the field, the transplants undergo a small or large setback in growth, known as transplanting shock. Various practices are commonly applied to reduce the transplanting shock. In the past two decades, several studies have shown that the application of microbial and non-microbial biostimulants can enhance plant tolerance against abiotic stresses. However, there is no information on the effect of applying biostimulants at the time of transplanting in mitigating the transplanting shock of lettuce transplants in the field. Lettuce seedlings transplanted into the soil of an unheated plastic greenhouse were treated with two biostimulants, one microbial (Bactiva®) and one non-microbial (Isabion®), on the day of transplanting and after 14 and 21 days. During production, plant growth, and development, chlorophyll fluorescence and compositional parameters were determined. According to the results, the application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect on some measured parameters, with the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones. The above may constitute some effects on the transplanting shock, without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest. However, a notable effect was that a greater percentage of plants at harvest had a fresh weight in the 351–400 class, while the greatest percentage of the control plants had a fresh weight in the 301–350 g class. In contrast, the application of the microbial biostimulant had no significant effect on any of the parameters determined compared to the control. Therefore, under the conditions of the present study, the effectiveness of biostimulant application at the time of transplanting on lettuce transplants is questionable.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- Lettuce
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll index (CCI)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 8%e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed Fm/Fo by 7% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- Fm/Foe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 7%e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed Fv/Fo by 10% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- Fv/Foe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed Fv/Fm by 3% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- Fv/Fme0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed area by 27% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- areae0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 27%e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed total soluble phenols by 7% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- total soluble phenolse0
- Direction
- fewere0
- Value
- 7%e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment changed ABS/RC by 26% versus untreated controls.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- ABS/RCe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 26%e0
- Comparator
- control untreated onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaves of the treated plants having a higher chlorophyll index (CCI) by 8%, as well as higher fluorescence parameters Fm/Fo, Fv/Fo, and Fv/Fm and area by 7, 10, 3, and 27%, respectively, but fewer total soluble phenols and lower fluorescence parameter ABS/RC by 7 and 26%, respectively, compared to the control untreated ones”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on number of leaves/plant.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- number of leaves/plante0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho).
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho)e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on chlorophyll (a, b, a + b).
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll (a, b, a + b)e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on total carotenoid.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- total carotenoide0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on dry matter.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- dry mattere0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on nitrate content.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- nitrate contente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on antioxidant capacity.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- antioxidant capacitye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-microbial biostimulant treatment showed no significant effect on plant fresh weight at harvest.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- plant fresh weight at harveste0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, being accompanied by significant effects on the number of leaves/plant, the leaf color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and ho), and the chlorophyll (a, b, a + b), total carotenoid, dry matter, and nitrate content, along with the antioxidant capacity and plant fresh weight at harvest”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
A greater percentage of treated plants fell in the 351–400 fresh-weight class at harvest.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- non-microbial biostimulante1
- Outcome
- percentage of plants at harveste0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 351–400e0
- Qualifier
- 301–350 g classe0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a greater percentage of plants at harvest had a fresh weight in the 351–400 class, while the greatest percentage of the control plants had a fresh weight in the 301–350 g class”
t0“Lettuce”
e1“application of the non-microbial biostimulant had a significant effect”
Claim · model-written summary
The microbial biostimulant had no significant effect on any determined parameter.
- Taxon
- LettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- microbial biostimulante0
- Outcome
- any of the parameters determinede0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of the microbial biostimulant had no significant effect on any of the parameters determined compared to the control”
t0“Lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged biostimulant effectiveness for lettuce transplant shock questionable under the study conditions.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Outcome
- effectiveness of biostimulant application at the time of transplanting on lettuce transplants is questionablee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under the conditions of the present study, the effectiveness of biostimulant application at the time of transplanting on lettuce transplants is questionable”
t0“Lettuce”
The same questions in other papers
other · physiology: pigments · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ
17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →other · quality: postharvest · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →other · quality: phytochemicals · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →other · nutrient: content · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →other · yield · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →other · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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.