Abstract
Taste and aroma related compounds have been analyzed in a collection of four traditional varieties and two tomato hybrids, representing a wide variability in fruit shape and color, grown in different environments: screenhouse and open field. Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose) but similar acid contents (citric, malic, and glutamic acids). The decreased levels of sucrose equivalents and the similar ratios of sucrose equivalents to citric or glutamic acid contents indicated that protected cultivation, despite being useful to reduce the incidence of pests and viral diseases, reduces the organoleptic quality. Additionally, it doubles the interaccession variability and increased the level of intra-accession variability. In the case of aroma, the genotypic effect was considerably higher than the environmental component on the 12 main volatiles analyzed. Only hexanal and methyl salicylate were significantly affected by environment, while 10 out of 12 volatiles were affected by the genotype. Biplot analysis showed that, even in considerably different environments, it is possible to identify genotype-dependent main aroma profiles. In the case of 13 background volatiles, the environment showed no significant effects and the genotypic effect was lower, though it is possible to identify genotypic trends in background notes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation lowered fructose and glucose concentration.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- Protected cultivatione0
- Outcome
- sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation left acid contents similar.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Protected cultivatione1
- Outcome
- acid contents (citric, malic, and glutamic acids)e0
- Direction
- similare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but similar acid contents (citric, malic, and glutamic acids)”
t0“Tomato”
e1“Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation decreased sucrose equivalents.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Protected cultivatione1
- Outcome
- sucrose equivalentse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased levels of sucrose equivalents”
t0“Tomato”
e1“Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation left sugar-to-acid ratios similar.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Protected cultivatione1
- Outcome
- ratios of sucrose equivalents to citric or glutamic acid contentse0
- Direction
- similare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“similar ratios of sucrose equivalents to citric or glutamic acid contents”
t0“Tomato”
e1“Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation reduced organoleptic quality.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- protected cultivatione0
- Outcome
- organoleptic qualitye0
- Direction
- reducese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“protected cultivation, despite being useful to reduce the incidence of pests and viral diseases, reduces the organoleptic quality”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation reduced pest and viral disease incidence.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- protected cultivatione1
- Outcome
- incidence of pests and viral diseasese0
- Direction
- reducee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“useful to reduce the incidence of pests and viral diseases”
t0“Tomato”
e1“protected cultivation, despite being useful to reduce the incidence of pests and viral diseases, reduces the organoleptic quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation doubled interaccession variability.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Protected cultivatione1
- Outcome
- interaccession variabilitye0
- Direction
- doublese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it doubles the interaccession variability”
t0“Tomato”
e1“Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)”
Claim · model-written summary
Protected cultivation increased intra-accession variability.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Protected cultivatione1
- Outcome
- intra-accession variabilitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased the level of intra-accession variability”
t0“Tomato”
e1“Protected cultivation tended to show lower sugar concentration (fructose and glucose)”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype affected main aroma volatiles more than environment.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- genotypice0
- Outcome
- 12 main volatilese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- environmental componente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the genotypic effect was considerably higher than the environmental component on the 12 main volatiles analyzed”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Environment significantly affected hexanal and methyl salicylate.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- hexanal and methyl salicylatee0
- Setting
- environmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Only hexanal and methyl salicylate were significantly affected by environment”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype affected 10 of 12 main volatiles.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- genotypee0
- Outcome
- volatilese0
- Value
- 10 out of 12e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“10 out of 12 volatiles were affected by the genotype”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype-dependent main aroma profiles could be identified across environments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- genotype-dependent main aroma profilese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“even in considerably different environments, it is possible to identify genotype-dependent main aroma profiles”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Environment showed no significant effect on background volatiles.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- background volatilese1
- Direction
- no significant effectse0
- Setting
- environmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the environment showed no significant effects”
t0“Tomato”
e1“In the case of 13 background volatiles, the environment showed no significant effects”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype had a lower effect on background volatiles.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Material
- genotypice0
- Outcome
- background volatilese1
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the genotypic effect was lower”
t0“Tomato”
e1“In the case of 13 background volatiles, the environment showed no significant effects”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypic trends could be identified in background notes.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- genotypic trends in background notese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it is possible to identify genotypic trends in background notes”
t0“Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →cultivation system · quality: general · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →cultivation system · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →cultivation system · molecular: metabolites · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.