Abstract
Abstract A greenhouse experiment was designed in order to evaluate growth, water relations, and nutrient concentrations of grafted and ungrafted tomato plants grown under varying levels of salinity (0, 30, or 60 mM NaCl). Two cultivars, ‘Fanny’ and ‘Goldmar’, were grafted onto AR‐9704, using the cleft‐grafting method. Growth of grafted ‘Fanny’ plants was higher than that of ungrafted plants. Growth of ‘Goldmar’ plants was not affected by salinity treatments or grafting, but it was slower than for ‘Fanny’. Leaf turgor showed no significant differences between grafted and ungrafted plants or between salinity levels. The stomatal conductance (G s ) was higher for grafted than for ungrafted plants, and salinity decreased it significantly and progressively in both grafted and ungrafted plants and in both varieties. The concentrations of Na + and Cl – were significantly higher in ungrafted than in grafted ‘Fanny’ plants. ‘Fanny’ was more tolerant when grafted, probably due to reduced accumulation of Na + and/or Cl – in the shoot.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Growth of grafted ‘Fanny’ tomato plants was higher than that of ungrafted plants.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Material
- Fannye0
- Treatment
- graftede0
- Outcome
- Growthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- ungrafted plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth of grafted ‘Fanny’ plants was higher than that of ungrafted plants”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth of ‘Goldmar’ tomato plants was not affected by salinity treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- Goldmare0
- Treatment
- salinity treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Growthe0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth of ‘Goldmar’ plants was not affected by salinity treatments or grafting”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth of ‘Goldmar’ tomato plants was not affected by grafting.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- Goldmare0
- Treatment
- graftinge0
- Outcome
- Growthe0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth of ‘Goldmar’ plants was not affected by salinity treatments or grafting”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
‘Goldmar’ tomato plants grew more slowly than ‘Fanny’.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Growth of ‘Goldmar’ plants was not affected by salinity treatments or grafting, but it was slower than for ‘Fanny’”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf turgor showed no significant difference between grafted and ungrafted tomato plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- graftede0
- Outcome
- Leaf turgore0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- ungrafted plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf turgor showed no significant differences between grafted and ungrafted plants”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf turgor showed no significant difference between salinity levels in tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- salinity levelse0
- Outcome
- Leaf turgore0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf turgor showed no significant differences between grafted and ungrafted plants or between salinity levels”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance was higher in grafted than in ungrafted tomato plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- graftede0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- ungrafted plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The stomatal conductance (G s ) was higher for grafted than for ungrafted plants”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Salinity decreased stomatal conductance significantly and progressively in both grafted and ungrafted plants and in both varieties.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- salinitye0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- progressively in both grafted and ungrafted plants and in both varietiese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The stomatal conductance (G s ) was higher for grafted than for ungrafted plants, and salinity decreased it significantly and progressively in both grafted and ungrafted plants and in both varieties”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Concentrations of Na+ and Cl– were significantly higher in ungrafted than in grafted ‘Fanny’ plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- Fannye0
- Treatment
- graftede0
- Outcome
- concentrations of Na + and Cl –e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- higher in ungrafted than in graftede0
- Comparator
- ungraftede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The concentrations of Na + and Cl – were significantly higher in ungrafted than in grafted ‘Fanny’ plants”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafted ‘Fanny’ was probably more tolerant due to reduced accumulation of Na+ and/or Cl– in the shoot.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- Fannye0
- Organ / stage
- shoote0
- Treatment
- graftede0
- Compound
- Na + and/or Cl –e0
- Outcome
- more tolerante0
- Qualifier
- probablye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“‘Fanny’ was more tolerant when grafted, probably due to reduced accumulation of Na + and/or Cl – in the shoot”
t0“grafted tomato plants”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · physiology: gas exchange · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
29 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →salinity · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →grafting · physiology: gas exchange · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →grafting · physiology: water · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →grafting · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →salinity · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
260 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
296 papers more in this group
See all 300 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.