Abstract
This study examined the effects of changes to application methods, application time, and combinations of different extracts on the growth and yield of cucumbers. Chlorophyll and photosynthetic efficiency levels in cucumber plants were also measured after receiving treatments of selected liquid fertilizers. Mineral nutrition levels in both extracts themselves and the test plants were measured. Crude protein, crude fat, ash, total phenol and flavonoid contents, and DPPH radical scavenging activity in cucumber were determined. Cucumber plant height and shoot fresh weight at 7 and 14 days after treatments generally increased significantly regardless of the extraction methods or extract materials. On the other hand, cucumber leaf number was similar regardless of the extracts used. The application frequency effects differed according to the extraction methods, extracts, and parameters investigated. In addition, the combinations of extracts did not produce significant increases in cucumber plant growth. Cucumber fruit weight was 17–81%, 10–61%, and 10–45% higher than the control or oil cake when the plants were treated with fermentation, boiled water, and water extracts, respectively. The chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency of cucumber plants treated with various extracts did not vary significantly. Extracts with the highest mineral nutrients were not effective growth promotors of cucumber plants. This means that growth promotion may not be caused by high levels of one specific macro or micro element but by some specific combinations of various elements. Compared to the control, most elements in the cucumber leaves decreased significantly when treated with most of the extracts. Generally, crude protein, crude fat, and ash contents were not negatively affected by the extract treatments. Moreover, most of the extracts did not adversely affect total phenol and flavonoid contents and DPPH radical scavenging activity. Thus, these extracts may be used for growth promotion without negative effects to primary and secondary substances in organically cultivated crop fields.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Extract treatments significantly increased cucumber height and shoot fresh weight at 7 and 14 days.
- Taxon
- Cucumber
Cucumis sativust0 - Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- plant height and shoot fresh weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 7 and 14 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Cucumber plant height and shoot fresh weight at 7 and 14 days after treatments generally increased significantly regardless of the extraction methods or extract materials.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cucumber leaf number was similar across extract treatments.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- extractse0
- Outcome
- leaf numbere0
- Direction
- similare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“cucumber leaf number was similar regardless of the extracts used”
Claim · model-written summary
The effects of application frequency differed by extraction method, extract and measured parameter.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- application frequencye0
- Outcome
- effectse0
- Direction
- differede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“The application frequency effects differed according to the extraction methods, extracts, and parameters investigated.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined extracts did not significantly increase cucumber growth.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- combinations of extractse0
- Outcome
- cucumber plant growthe0
- Direction
- did not produce significant increasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“the combinations of extracts did not produce significant increases in cucumber plant growth”
Claim · model-written summary
fermentation extracts increased cucumber fruit weight 17–81% relative to control or oil cake.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- fermentatione0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 17–81%e0
- Comparator
- control or oil cakee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Cucumber fruit weight was 17–81%, 10–61%, and 10–45% higher than the control or oil cake when the plants were treated with fermentation, boiled water, and water extracts, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
boiled water extracts increased cucumber fruit weight 10–61% relative to control or oil cake.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- boiled watere0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10–61%e0
- Comparator
- control or oil cakee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Cucumber fruit weight was 17–81%, 10–61%, and 10–45% higher than the control or oil cake when the plants were treated with fermentation, boiled water, and water extracts, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
water extracts extracts increased cucumber fruit weight 10–45% relative to control or oil cake.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- water extractse0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 10–45%e0
- Comparator
- control or oil cakee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Cucumber fruit weight was 17–81%, 10–61%, and 10–45% higher than the control or oil cake when the plants were treated with fermentation, boiled water, and water extracts, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency did not vary significantly with extract treatment.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- various extractse0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiencye0
- Direction
- did not varye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“The chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency of cucumber plants treated with various extracts did not vary significantly.”
Claim · model-written summary
The most mineral-rich extracts did not promote cucumber growth effectively.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- Extracts with the highest mineral nutrientse0
- Outcome
- growth promotorse0
- Direction
- not effectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Extracts with the highest mineral nutrients were not effective growth promotors of cucumber plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Most leaf mineral elements decreased significantly under most extract treatments versus controls.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Organ / stage
- leavese0
- Treatment
- most of the extractse0
- Outcome
- most elementse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Compared to the control, most elements in the cucumber leaves decreased significantly when treated with most of the extracts.”
Claim · model-written summary
Crude protein, fat and ash contents generally were not negatively affected by extract treatments.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- extract treatmentse0
- Outcome
- crude protein, crude fat, and ash contentse0
- Direction
- not negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“Generally, crude protein, crude fat, and ash contents were not negatively affected by the extract treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Most extracts did not adversely affect phenols, flavonoids or DPPH activity.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- most of the extractse0
- Outcome
- total phenol and flavonoid contents and DPPH radical scavenging activitye0
- Direction
- did not adversely affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“most of the extracts did not adversely affect total phenol and flavonoid contents and DPPH radical scavenging activity.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose using these extracts for growth promotion in organic crop fields without harming primary or secondary substances.
- Taxon
- CucumberCucumis sativust0
- Treatment
- these extractse0
- Outcome
- growth promotion without negative effects to primary and secondary substancese0
- Setting
- organically cultivated crop fieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)”
e0“these extracts may be used for growth promotion without negative effects to primary and secondary substances in organically cultivated crop fields.”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · quality: phytochemicals · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →botanical · physiology: photosynthesis · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →processing · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →botanical · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →botanical · growth · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
107 papers more in this group
See all 111 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.