Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to compare the growth and quality of cucumber fruits, in response to different concentrations (C0, C0.75, and C1.5 g L-1) and different application methods (M1: foliar sprays, M2: fertigation, M3: combined foliar sprays and fertigation) of seaweed extract (SwE). The simultaneous use of the method and different concentration of SwE increased the fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit length, fruit diameter and firmness, stomatal conductance, and nitrate concentration of fruit. On the other hand, the highest amount of fruit firmness (69.25 and 69.27 N) was observed in M2C0.75 and M2C1.5 compared to other treatments, respectively. The M1C0.75 treatment increased the fruit diameter by 26.52% more than the M1C0 treatment. Fruit weight, fruit length, and yield were in the following order in different treatments, M1C1.5˃ M1C0.75 ˃ M3C1.5. So that only in the M1C1.5 treatment, fruit weight, yield, and fruit length were 25, 52.55, and 25.86% higher than the M1C0 treatment, respectively. Generally, the M1 and M3 in concentrations of 0.75 and 1.5 created better plant growth, fruit shape, and quality characteristics compared to the second method (M2) and the C0 treatment. Therefore, the concentration of 1.5 g L-1 and the use of foliar spraying methods, and the combination of foliar spraying and fertigation can be recommended to achieve the maximum yield and quality of cucumber fruits.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Seaweed extract concentration and application method increased leaf fresh weight and leaf number.
- Taxon
- cucumber
Cucumis sativust0 - Treatment
- SwEe0
- Outcome
- fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leavese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The simultaneous use of the method and different concentration of SwE increased the fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit length, fruit diameter and firmness, stomatal conductance, and nitrate concentration of fruit”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
Seaweed extract increased fruit weight, yield, and fruit length.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- SwEe0
- Outcome
- fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The simultaneous use of the method and different concentration of SwE increased the fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit length, fruit diameter and firmness, stomatal conductance, and nitrate concentration of fruit”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
Seaweed extract increased evaporation and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- SwEe0
- Outcome
- evaporatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The simultaneous use of the method and different concentration of SwE increased the fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit length, fruit diameter and firmness, stomatal conductance, and nitrate concentration of fruit”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
Seaweed extract increased fruit diameter and firmness.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- SwEe0
- Outcome
- fruit diameter and firmnesse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The simultaneous use of the method and different concentration of SwE increased the fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit length, fruit diameter and firmness, stomatal conductance, and nitrate concentration of fruit”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
Seaweed extract increased fruit nitrate concentration.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- Seaweed Extractt0
- Outcome
- nitrate concentration of fruite0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased the fresh weight of the leaf, fruit weight, yield, number of leaves, evaporation, fruit length, fruit diameter and firmness, stomatal conductance, and nitrate concentration of fruit”
t0“Seaweed Extract (Sargasum boveanum): Implications Towards Sustainable Production of Cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M2C0.75 yielded fruit firmness of 69.25 N, among the highest.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- M2C0.75e0
- Outcome
- fruit firmnesse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 69.25 and 69.27 Ne0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest amount of fruit firmness (69.25 and 69.27 N) was observed in M2C0.75 and M2C1.5 compared to other treatments”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M2C1.5 yielded fruit firmness of 69.27 N, among the highest.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- M2C1.5e0
- Outcome
- fruit firmnesse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 69.25 and 69.27 Ne0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest amount of fruit firmness (69.25 and 69.27 N) was observed in M2C0.75 and M2C1.5 compared to other treatments”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M1C0.75 increased fruit diameter by 26.52% compared with M1C0.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- M1C0.75 treatmente0
- Outcome
- fruit diametere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 26.52%e0
- Comparator
- M1C0 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The M1C0.75 treatment increased the fruit diameter by 26.52% more than the M1C0 treatment”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit weight, length and yield ranked M1C1.5 above M1C0.75 above M3C1.5.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Outcome
- Fruit weight, fruit length, and yielde0
- Qualifier
- M1C1.5˃ M1C0.75 ˃ M3C1.5e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit weight, fruit length, and yield were in the following order in different treatments, M1C1.5˃ M1C0.75 ˃ M3C1.5”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M1C1.5 raised fruit weight by 25% relative to M1C0.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- M1C1.5 treatmente0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 25, 52.55, and 25.86%e0
- Comparator
- M1C0 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only in the M1C1.5 treatment, fruit weight, yield, and fruit length were 25, 52.55, and 25.86% higher than the M1C0 treatment”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M1C1.5 raised yield by 52.55% relative to M1C0.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- M1C1.5 treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 25, 52.55, and 25.86%e0
- Comparator
- M1C0 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only in the M1C1.5 treatment, fruit weight, yield, and fruit length were 25, 52.55, and 25.86% higher than the M1C0 treatment”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M1C1.5 raised fruit length by 25.86% relative to M1C0.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- M1C1.5 treatmente0
- Outcome
- fruit lengthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 25, 52.55, and 25.86%e0
- Comparator
- M1C0 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only in the M1C1.5 treatment, fruit weight, yield, and fruit length were 25, 52.55, and 25.86% higher than the M1C0 treatment”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
M1 and M3 at 0.75 and 1.5 produced better growth, fruit shape, and quality than M2 and C0.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativust0
- Outcome
- plant growth, fruit shape, and quality characteristicse0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- second method (M2) and the C0 treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the M1 and M3 in concentrations of 0.75 and 1.5 created better plant growth, fruit shape, and quality characteristics compared to the second method (M2) and the C0 treatment”
t0“cucumber”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 1.5 g L-1 with foliar spraying or combined foliar spraying and fertigation to maximize cucumber yield and quality.
- Taxon
- cucumberCucumis sativuse0
- Treatment
- 1.5 g L-1e0
- Outcome
- maximum yield and quality of cucumber fruitse0
- Qualifier
- foliar spraying methods, and the combination of foliar spraying and fertigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the concentration of 1.5 g L-1 and the use of foliar spraying methods, and the combination of foliar spraying and fertigation can be recommended to achieve the maximum yield and quality of cucumber fruits”
The same questions in other papers
other · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →other · quality: postharvest · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.