Abstract
Abstract Preharvest foliar applications of ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid) to ‘Dorchester’ and ‘Campbell 37’ processing tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) did not adversely affect fresh fruit quality (i.e.)pH, soluble solids, color, core length, core diameter, and pigmentation) or canned quality (i.e.; color, wholeness, vascularization, and acceptability). Neither total marketable yields, nor the percentage of mature green fruit were increased over untreated controls by any of the inhibitors.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Preharvest ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors did not adversely affect fresh fruit quality
- Taxon
- processing tomatoese0
- Treatment
- ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid)e2
- Outcome
- fresh fruit qualitye1
- Direction
- did not adversely affecte1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“processing tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
e1“did not adversely affect fresh fruit quality (i.e.)pH, soluble solids, color, core length, core diameter, and pigmentation”
e2“Preharvest foliar applications of ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid)”
Claim · model-written summary
Preharvest ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors did not adversely affect canned quality
- Taxon
- processing tomatoese0
- Treatment
- ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid)e2
- Outcome
- canned qualitye3
- Direction
- did not adversely affecte3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“processing tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
e2“Preharvest foliar applications of ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid)”
e3“did not adversely affect fresh fruit quality (i.e.)pH, soluble solids, color, core length, core diameter, and pigmentation) or canned quality (i.e.; color, wholeness, vascularization, and acceptability)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors did not increase total marketable yields over untreated controls
Verbatim
e0“processing tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
e2“Preharvest foliar applications of ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid)”
e4“Neither total marketable yields, nor the percentage of mature green fruit were increased over untreated controls by any of the inhibitors”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors did not increase the percentage of mature green fruit over untreated controls
Verbatim
e0“processing tomatoes ( Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
e2“Preharvest foliar applications of ethylene biosynthesis inhibitors (aminooxyacetic acid and alpha-aminoisobutyric acid)”
e4“Neither total marketable yields, nor the percentage of mature green fruit were increased over untreated controls by any of the inhibitors”
The same questions in other papers
(aminooxy)acetic acid · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
ethene · quality: general · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →ethene · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 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.