Paper · 2022 · Horticulturae

The Alleviation Effects of Biostimulants Application on Lettuce Plants Grown under Deficit Irrigation

Christina Chaski; Spyridon A. Petropoulos

4
claims
10
verbatim quotes
17
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Τhe aim of this study was to examine the potential of using biostimulants for the amelioration of deficit irrigation effects on field-grown lettuce plants growth parameters (cv. Doris (Romaine type) and cv. Manchester (Batavia type)). Therefore, five biostimulatory products that differed in their composition were evaluated, including seaweed extracts, amino acids, humic and fulvic acids, macronutrients, Si, and vegetable proteins, while a control treatment with no biostimulants applied on plants was also considered. Plants were subjected to three irrigation regimes, e.g., rain-fed plants (RF), deficit irrigation (I1; 50% of field capacity) and normal irrigation (I2; 100 of field capacity). The results indicate that the application of seaweed extracts, macronutrients, and amino acids (SW treatment) alleviated the negative effects of deficit irrigation on plant growth and chlorophyll content of Romaine-type plants. On the other hand, Batavia-type plants were more susceptible to water stress, since the highest crop yield plant was observed under the full irrigation treatment and the application of vegetal proteins and amino acids (VP treatment). In general, the application of biostimulants on the Romaine type improved plant growth under water shortage conditions compared with fully irrigated plants in almost all measurements, whereas the Batavia-type plants appeared to be more sensitive to deficit irrigation. Therefore, the ecofriendly practices of deficit irrigation and biostimulant application could be useful in leafy vegetable production on a genotype-depended manner.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seaweed extracts, macronutrients and amino acids alleviated deficit irrigation effects on Romaine lettuce growth and chlorophyll content.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Material
Romaine-typee0
Treatment
seaweed extracts, macronutrients, and amino acids (SW treatment)e0
Outcome
plant growth and chlorophyll contente0
Direction
alleviatede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the application of seaweed extracts, macronutrients, and amino acids (SW treatment) alleviated the negative effects of deficit irrigation on plant growth and chlorophyll content of Romaine-type plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 725–925 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Batavia lettuce had its highest yield with full irrigation and vegetal proteins and amino acids.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Material
Batavia-typee1
Treatment
full irrigation treatment and the application of vegetal proteins and amino acids (VP treatment)e0
Outcome
crop yield plante0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest crop yield plant was observed under the full irrigation treatment and the application of vegetal proteins and amino acids (VP treatment)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1159 · show in text ↑
e1

“On the other hand, Batavia-type plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 927–965 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–70 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Batavia lettuce was more susceptible to water stress than Romaine lettuce.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Material
Batavia-typee0
Outcome
susceptible to water stresse0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
Romaine-typee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Batavia-type plants were more susceptible to water stress”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 946–1003 · show in text ↑
e1

“Romaine-type plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–925 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biostimulants improved Romaine lettuce growth under water shortage relative to fully irrigated plants in almost all measurements.

Taxon
LettuceLactuca sativat0
Material
Romaine typee0
Treatment
application of biostimulantse0
Outcome
plant growthe0
Direction
improvede0
Qualifier
in almost all measurementse0
Comparator
fully irrigated plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the application of biostimulants on the Romaine type improved plant growth under water shortage conditions compared with fully irrigated plants in almost all measurements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1343 · show in text ↑
t0

“Lettuce Plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–70 · show in text ↑

macronutrient · physiology: pigments · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

other · physiology: pigments · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results differ

18 papers: 17 positive, 1 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

irrigation · yield · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

57 papers: 32 positive, 25 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

53 papers more in this group

See all 57 papers →

other · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

78 papers: 66 positive, 12 negative or no effect

65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

74 papers more in this group

See all 78 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.