Paper · 2024 · Horticulturae

Extracellular Fragmented Self-DNA Displays Biostimulation of Lettuce in Soilless Culture

Tatiana P. L. Cunha-Chiamolera; Miguel Urrestarazu; Ireri A. Carbajal-Valenzuela; et al.

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Research is advancing regarding techniques that are based on natural products developed using the plants. Extracellular DNA (eDNA) is a potential alternative that can be used as active material in agronomy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of self-eDNA using fertigation in lettuce plants as a biostimulant. Five fertigation treatments were used: 0 (control), 0.025, 0.25, 2.5 and 25 mg self-eDNA per plant. Fertigation was monitored through drainage fraction, pH and EC. The benefits of fertigation were evaluated using water, nitrate and potassium uptake, and growth. There was a significant correlation between fertigation uptake and growth. The highest correlation (R2 = 0.96) occurred between water uptake and growth. There was a quadratic fit between uptake and production parameters and the dose of self-eDNA applied. Mean drainage values showed no significant differences between treatments for EC and pH. The highest values of fertigation uptake (water, nitrate and potassium) and growth were observed at doses of 0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNA. Doses lower than 0.25 decreased by 21.3%, while doses higher than 2.5 decreased by 16.4%. Self-eDNA had beneficial effects as a biostimulant and potentially had an appropriate cost–benefit ratio.

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

Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertigation uptake and growth were significantly correlated in lettuce.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Outcome
growthe0
Qualifier
fertigation uptakee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There was a significant correlation between fertigation uptake and growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 589–663 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water uptake and growth had the highest reported correlation, R2 = 0.96.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Outcome
correlatione0
Value
R2 = 0.96e0
Qualifier
water uptake and growthe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest correlation (R2 = 0.96) occurred between water uptake and growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 664–741 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Uptake and production parameters had quadratic relationships with applied self-eDNA dose.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
dose of self-eDNA appliede0
Outcome
uptake and production parameterse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There was a quadratic fit between uptake and production parameters and the dose of self-eDNA applied.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 742–843 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean drainage EC did not differ significantly between treatments.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
ECe0
Direction
no significant differencese0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mean drainage values showed no significant differences between treatments for EC and pH.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–932 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean drainage pH did not differ significantly between treatments.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
pHe0
Direction
no significant differencese0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mean drainage values showed no significant differences between treatments for EC and pH.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–932 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water, nitrate and potassium uptake were highest at 0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNA.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNAe0
Outcome
fertigation uptake (water, nitrate and potassium)e0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest values of fertigation uptake (water, nitrate and potassium) and growth were observed at doses of 0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNA.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1068 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lettuce growth was highest at 0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNA.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNAe0
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest values of fertigation uptake (water, nitrate and potassium) and growth were observed at doses of 0.25 and 2.5 mg self-eDNA.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–1068 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Doses below 0.25 were associated with a 21.3% decrease in the reported response.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
Doses lower than 0.25e0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
21.3%e0

Not reportedComparatorOutcome

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Doses lower than 0.25 decreased by 21.3%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1109 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Doses above 2.5 were associated with a 16.4% decrease in the reported response.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
doses higher than 2.5e0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
16.4%e0

Not reportedComparatorOutcome

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“doses higher than 2.5 decreased by 16.4%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1117–1157 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors found self-eDNA beneficial as a biostimulant and potentially cost-effective.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Outcome
beneficial effects as a biostimulante0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Self-eDNA had beneficial effects as a biostimulant and potentially had an appropriate cost–benefit ratio.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1264 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Self-eDNA potentially had an appropriate cost–benefit ratio.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Outcome
appropriate cost–benefit ratioe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Self-eDNA had beneficial effects as a biostimulant and potentially had an appropriate cost–benefit ratio.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1159–1264 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–68 · show in text ↑