Abstract
grown in a greenhouse using garden soil under increased salinity (0 mM NaCl-control and 200 mM NaCl). Growth and biochemical relations of fodderbeet and seabeet were analyzed and compared. Both plant species tolerated salinity level of 200 mM NaCl, but seabeet performed better than fodderbeet. Chlorophyll a content showed a progressive increase at different harvests. Chlorophyll b content was low at salinity level of 200 mM NaCl than the control throughout the growth period. Sugar content of fodderbeet and seabeet decreased in the presence of salt in the growth medium. The effect of salinity on the sugar content of seabeet root was not significant. However, sugar content significantly decreased in the fodderbeet under saline conditions. A significant increase (P<0.01) in the protein content was observed in both species. Protein content in seabeet was significantly higher compared to fodderbeet. Higher glycinebetaine content under saline conditions in both species indicate the higher degree of salt tolerance. Presence of salt ions may have helped the improvement of sucrose and protein synthesis, which in turn activates the biosynthesis of glycinebetaine. This behavior may be ascribed as one of the mechanisms adopted by the plant of salinity tolerance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Fodderbeet tolerated 200 mM NaCl.
Verbatim
e0“Both plant species tolerated salinity level of 200 mM NaCl”
t0“FODDER BEET AND SEA BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Seabeet tolerated 200 mM NaCl and performed better than fodderbeet.
- Taxon
- seabeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. maritimae0 - Treatment
- 200 mM NaCle0
- Outcome
- performed bettere0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- fodderbeete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both plant species tolerated salinity level of 200 mM NaCl, but seabeet performed better than fodderbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll a content progressively increased across harvests.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll a content showed a progressive increase at different harvests”
t0“FODDER BEET AND SEA BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
At 200 mM NaCl, chlorophyll b content was lower than control throughout growth.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll b content was low at salinity level of 200 mM NaCl than the control throughout the growth period”
t0“FODDER BEET AND SEA BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Salt decreased fodderbeet sugar content.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sugar content of fodderbeet and seabeet decreased in the presence of salt in the growth medium”
Claim · model-written summary
Salt decreased seabeet sugar content.
- Taxon
- seabeetBeta vulgaris subsp. maritimae0
- Treatment
- salt in the growth mediume0
- Outcome
- Sugar contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sugar content of fodderbeet and seabeet decreased in the presence of salt in the growth medium”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity had no significant effect on seabeet root sugar content.
- Taxon
- seabeetBeta vulgaris subsp. maritimae0
- Organ / stage
- roote0
- Treatment
- salinitye0
- Outcome
- sugar contente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of salinity on the sugar content of seabeet root was not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Fodderbeet sugar content significantly decreased under salinity.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“sugar content significantly decreased in the fodderbeet under saline conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein content increased significantly in both beet species.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“A significant increase (P<0.01) in the protein content was observed in both species”
t0“FODDER BEET AND SEA BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Seabeet protein content was significantly higher than fodderbeet.
- Taxon
- seabeetBeta vulgaris subsp. maritimae0
- Outcome
- Protein contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- fodderbeete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Protein content in seabeet was significantly higher compared to fodderbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Both beet species had higher glycinebetaine under saline conditions.
- Taxon
- FODDER BEET AND SEA BEETt0
- Treatment
- saline conditionse0
- Outcome
- glycinebetaine contente0
- Direction
- Highere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Higher glycinebetaine content under saline conditions in both species”
t0“FODDER BEET AND SEA BEET”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors proposed that salt ions may improve sucrose and protein synthesis, activating glycinebetaine biosynthesis.
Verbatim
e0“Presence of salt ions may have helped the improvement of sucrose and protein synthesis, which in turn activates the biosynthesis of glycinebetaine”
t0“FODDER BEET AND SEA BEET”
The same questions in other papers
sodium chloride · physiology: pigments · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
salinity · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →in vitro · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
salinity · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.