Claim · model-written summary
Treatment 3 was among the best for protein.
- Taxon
- Sweet Potato
_Flower.jpg?width=60)
Ipomoea batatast0 - Treatment
- compost with inoculation with mycorrhizae0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- proteine0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Flower.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Sweet Potato”
e0“Regarding protein, treatments 3 (compost with inoculation with mycorrhiza) and treatment 4 (compost with PGPR) were the best”
Title
How do Biostimulants Support Sweet Potato Production in an Organic and Sustainable Farming System?
M. El-Shahat; A. El-Sheshtawy; Kh. Ghanem, Journal of Agricultural Chemistry and Biotechnology 2023. doi:10.21608/jacb.2023.206216.1051
Other claims from this paper (13)
- Intervention effect Biostimulant treatments increased sweet potato vegetative growth parameters.
- Intervention effect Biostimulants, especially vermi tea, improved chlorophyll A, B and total chlorophyll.
- Intervention effect Treatment 9 gave the best carotenoid value.
- Intervention effect Treatment 7 gave the best ascorbic acid value.
- Intervention effect Treatment 10 gave the best ascorbic acid value.
- Intervention effect Fat content did not differ between treatment 5 and the fertilizer control.
- Intervention effect Fat content did not differ between treatment 8 and the fertilizer control.
- Intervention effect Treatment 4 was among the best for protein.
- Intervention effect Treatment 3 was better for fiber.
- Intervention effect Treatments 3, 4, 7 and 8 were best for sugars.
- Intervention effect Treatment 10 had superior starch percentage.
- Intervention effect Compost alone gave the highest moisture content.
- Intervention effect Treatment 10 gave the highest moisture content.