Abstract
Nutrition of host plants has been shown to have a direct effect on the productivity of numerous insect pests, including western flower thrips [(WFT) Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)] – a major pest on both horticulture and agronomic crops. Plants use constitutive and induced chemical defenses to aid in protection against phytophagous insects. Reductions in WFT abundance in response to decreased nutrient availability has been attributed to the reduced availability of nutrients required for WFT productivity. The goals of this research were to determine the effects of fertilization on chemical defenses, and subsequent effects on WFT feeding and abundance. More importantly, the effects of fertilization and WFT feeding on plant growth, development, physiology, and quality were determined to assess the viability of optimizing fertilization in order to increase host plant resistance in gerbera. Constitutive (i.e. phenolics) and induced (i.e. jasmonic acid) chemical defenses were enhanced when fertilization was reduced. Reducing fertilization increased the total phenolics and wound- and WFT-induced jasmonic acid (JA) accumulation in gerbera. The enhanced chemical defenses in lower fertility plants resulted in reduced WFT abundance and feeding damage. These results indicate that the strategy for some plant species under nutrient stress is to increase constitutive defenses, while maintaining, or possibly increasing inducible defenses instead of growth. Similar to 0X fertility plants (only supplied with initial fertilizer charge in commercial media), 0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate) gerberas had reduced biomass and greater chemical defenses compared to 1X plants, but these plants did not appear to be nutritionally stressed—and 0.3X plants without WFT were rated as marketable. Reducing fertilization by 70% (0.3X) did not affect flower dry mass (DM) or the rate of flowering, but the flower stalks (peduncles) were taller in response to the fertilizer reduction. Hence, reducing fertilization to a moderate level in gerbera production may reduce susceptibility to WFT, while producing marketable crops.
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
Reduced fertilization increased total phenolics in gerbera.
GerberaNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fertilization increased the total phenolics and wound- and WFT-induced jasmonic acid (JA) accumulation in gerbera.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced fertilization increased wound- and WFT-induced jasmonic acid accumulation in gerbera.
- Treatment
- Reducing fertilizatione0
- Interactor
- WFTe0pest
- Outcome
- wound- and WFT-induced jasmonic acid (JA) accumulatione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fertilization increased the total phenolics and wound- and WFT-induced jasmonic acid (JA) accumulation in gerbera.”
Claim · model-written summary
Enhanced defenses in lower fertility gerbera reduced western flower thrips abundance.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The enhanced chemical defenses in lower fertility plants resulted in reduced WFT abundance and feeding damage.”
t0“gerbera to western flower thrips”
Claim · model-written summary
Enhanced defenses in lower fertility gerbera reduced western flower thrips feeding damage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The enhanced chemical defenses in lower fertility plants resulted in reduced WFT abundance and feeding damage.”
t0“gerbera to western flower thrips”
Claim · model-written summary
Gerbera at 0.3X fertility had reduced biomass compared with 1X plants.
- Treatment
- 0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate)e0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- 1X plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate) gerberas had reduced biomass and greater chemical defenses compared to 1X plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Gerbera at 0.3X fertility had greater chemical defenses compared with 1X plants.
- Treatment
- 0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate)e0
- Outcome
- chemical defensese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- 1X plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate) gerberas had reduced biomass and greater chemical defenses compared to 1X plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Gerbera at 0.3X fertility did not appear nutritionally stressed.
- Treatment
- 0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate)e1
- Outcome
- nutritionally stressede0
- Direction
- did not appeare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these plants did not appear to be nutritionally stressed”
e1“0.3X (received 30% of recommended rate) gerberas”
Claim · model-written summary
Gerbera at 0.3X fertility without western flower thrips was rated marketable.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“0.3X plants without WFT were rated as marketable”
t0“gerbera to western flower thrips”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing fertilization by 70% did not affect gerbera flower dry mass.
- Treatment
- Reducing fertilization by 70% (0.3X)e0
- Outcome
- flower dry mass (DM)e0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fertilization by 70% (0.3X) did not affect flower dry mass (DM) or the rate of flowering”
t0“gerbera to western flower thrips”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing fertilization by 70% did not affect the rate of flowering in gerbera.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing fertilization by 70% (0.3X) did not affect flower dry mass (DM) or the rate of flowering”
t0“gerbera to western flower thrips”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing fertilization made gerbera flower stalks taller.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the flower stalks (peduncles) were taller in response to the fertilizer reduction”
t0“gerbera to western flower thrips”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest moderately reducing gerbera fertilization to reduce western flower thrips susceptibility while retaining marketability.
- Treatment
- reducing fertilization to a moderate levele0
- Interactor
- WFTe0pest
- Outcome
- susceptibility to WFTe0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Qualifier
- while producing marketable cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing fertilization to a moderate level in gerbera production may reduce susceptibility to WFT, while producing marketable crops”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · phenology · GerberaPositive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →fertilization · growth · GerberaPositive and negative results
14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →fertilization · quality: phytochemicals · GerberaResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.