Abstract
The aim of this work was to evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits, hybrid "Vênus", produced on substrates and with application of nutrient solution and humic acids (AH). Four doses of AH were evaluated (0, 20, 40 and 80 L ha-1) and 4 substrates: S1 (coconut fiber (CF)), S2 (FC + carbonized coffee husk (CC) in the ratio 1:3), S3 (CF + CC in the ratio 2:3) and S4 (CC), were evaluated following the randomized blocks design in factorial 4x4 scheme with four replications. The 35-day old seedlings were transplanted into plastic bags of 7 L. The humic acids were applied four times in eight-day intervals, and the first application was carried out eight days after transplanting. There was no significant effect of AH on the yield and quality of fruit, except in relation to soluble solids (SS)/titratable acidity (AT). Doses of up to 36 L ha-1, increase the AT, above that amount favored increase of SS. The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4, did not alter the production of small fruits, medium, non-commercial, moisture, pH, SS, AT and SS/AT, however, significantly reduced the total production, commercial and large size fruit. The production of fruits in S1 was significantly higher compared to the other treatments, with an average of 142.6 t ha-1, showing average increase in yield of 24.4%, 29.3% and 36.1% compared to plant of treatments S2, S3 and S4, respectively.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid application had no significant effect on tomato yield and fruit quality, except for soluble solids and titratable acidity.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- AHe1
- Outcome
- yield and quality of fruite1
- Direction
- no significant effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e1“There was no significant effect of AH on the yield and quality of fruit, except in relation to soluble solids (SS)/titratable acidity (AT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid doses up to 36 L ha-1 increase titratable acidity (AT) in tomato fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Doses of up to 36 L ha-1e2
- Outcome
- ATe2
- Direction
- increasee2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e2“Doses of up to 36 L ha-1, increase the AT, above that amount favored increase of SS”
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid doses above 36 L ha-1 favour an increase in soluble solids (SS) in tomato fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- above that amounte2
- Outcome
- SSe2
- Direction
- favored increasee2
- Qualifier
- Doses of up to 36 L ha-1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e2“Doses of up to 36 L ha-1, increase the AT, above that amount favored increase of SS”
Claim · model-written summary
The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4 did not alter small, medium and non-commercial fruit production in tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- carbonized coffee huske3
- Outcome
- production of small fruits, medium, non-commerciale3
- Direction
- did not altere3
- Qualifier
- treatments S2, S3 and S4e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e3“The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4, did not alter the production of small fruits, medium, non-commercial, moisture, pH, SS, AT and SS/AT, however, significantly reduced the total production, commercial and large size fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4 did not alter moisture, pH and SS of tomato fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- carbonized coffee huske3
- Outcome
- moisture, pH, SSe3
- Direction
- did not altere3
- Qualifier
- treatments S2, S3 and S4e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e3“The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4, did not alter the production of small fruits, medium, non-commercial, moisture, pH, SS, AT and SS/AT, however, significantly reduced the total production, commercial and large size fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4 did not alter AT and SS/AT of tomato fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- carbonized coffee huske3
- Outcome
- AT and SS/ATe3
- Direction
- did not altere3
- Qualifier
- treatments S2, S3 and S4e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e3“The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4, did not alter the production of small fruits, medium, non-commercial, moisture, pH, SS, AT and SS/AT, however, significantly reduced the total production, commercial and large size fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4 significantly reduced total, commercial and large-size tomato fruit production.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- carbonized coffee huske3
- Outcome
- total production, commercial and large size fruite3
- Direction
- significantly reducede3
- Qualifier
- treatments S2, S3 and S4e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e3“The carbonized coffee husk in treatments S2, S3 and S4, did not alter the production of small fruits, medium, non-commercial, moisture, pH, SS, AT and SS/AT, however, significantly reduced the total production, commercial and large size fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Tomato fruit production on substrate S1 was significantly higher than on the other treatments, averaging 142.6 t ha-1.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- S1e4
- Outcome
- production of fruitse4
- Direction
- significantly highere4
- Value
- 142.6 t ha-1e4
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e4“The production of fruits in S1 was significantly higher compared to the other treatments, with an average of 142.6 t ha-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate S1 increased tomato yield by 24.4% compared with S2.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- S1e4
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- increasee5
- Value
- 24.4%e5
- Comparator
- S2e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e4“The production of fruits in S1 was significantly higher compared to the other treatments, with an average of 142.6 t ha-1”
e5“showing average increase in yield of 24.4%, 29.3% and 36.1% compared to plant of treatments S2, S3 and S4, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate S1 increased tomato yield by 29.3% compared with S3.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- S1e4
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- increasee5
- Value
- 29.3%e5
- Comparator
- S3e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e4“The production of fruits in S1 was significantly higher compared to the other treatments, with an average of 142.6 t ha-1”
e5“showing average increase in yield of 24.4%, 29.3% and 36.1% compared to plant of treatments S2, S3 and S4, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Substrate S1 increased tomato yield by 36.1% compared with S4.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- S1e4
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- increasee5
- Value
- 36.1%e5
- Comparator
- S4e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“evaluate the yield and quality of tomato fruits”
e4“The production of fruits in S1 was significantly higher compared to the other treatments, with an average of 142.6 t ha-1”
e5“showing average increase in yield of 24.4%, 29.3% and 36.1% compared to plant of treatments S2, S3 and S4, respectively”
The same questions in other papers
other · quality: general · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.