Abstract
Abstract. The experiment was carried out to study the effect of two rootstocks (‘Emperador F1’ (RZ) and ‘Maxifort F1’(De Ruter) on the quality and yield of tomato fruits (‘Abellus F1’, ‘Beril F1’ and ‘Lilos F1’ varieties). The obtained data denote that tomato grafting may significantly contribute to the growth and development of the plants. The number of fruits exceed the control by 30,2%, the number of racemes is also higher, while the number of fruits per raceme insignificantly differs between the analyzed variants. The average mass of one fruit was significantly influenced by grafting, exceeding the control by 19,1%. The results of physico-chemical analyses showed that the properties of the fruits of grafted plants were similar to those of the control plants in terms of acidity and dry substances. The rootstocks do not affect pH value of tomato fruits. Rezumat. Experienţa a fost efectuată cu scopul evaluării portaltoaielor Emperador F1 (RZ) şi Maxifort F1 (De Ruter) asupra producţiei şi calităţii tomatelor (soiurile Abellus F1, Beril F1, Lilos F1). Rezultatele înregistrate denotă că altoirea poate contribui semnificativ la creşterea şi dezvoltarea plantelor. Numărul de fructe depăşeşte martorul cu 30,2%, numărul de ciorchine de asemenea este mai mare, pe când numărul fructelor pe ciorchine diferă nesemnificativ între variantele analizate. Masa medie a unui fruct a fost influenţată semnificativ de altoire, depăşind martorul cu 19,1%. În urma analizelor fizico-chimice s-a stabilit că proprietăţile fructelor plantelor altoite au fost similare plantelor martor în cazul acidităţii, şi a substanţelor uscate. Portaltoaiele nu afectează valoarea pH-ului fructelor de tomate.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Tomato grafting may significantly contribute to plant growth and development.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- graftinge0
- Outcome
- growth and developmente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tomato grafting may significantly contribute to the growth and development of the plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting increased fruit number 30,2% above control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- graftinge1
- Outcome
- number of fruitse0
- Direction
- exceede0
- Value
- 30,2%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of fruits exceed the control by 30,2%”
e1“tomato grafting”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting increased raceme number.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- graftinge1
- Outcome
- number of racemese0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the number of racemes is also higher”
e1“tomato grafting”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit number per raceme did not differ significantly among variants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- graftinge1
- Outcome
- number of fruits per racemee0
- Comparator
- analyzed variantse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the number of fruits per raceme insignificantly differs between the analyzed variants”
e1“tomato grafting”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting increased average fruit mass 19,1% above control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- graftinge0
- Outcome
- average mass of one fruite0
- Direction
- exceedinge0
- Value
- 19,1%e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average mass of one fruit was significantly influenced by grafting, exceeding the control by 19,1%”
e1“tomato grafting”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafted and control fruits had similar acidity and dry substance.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- grafted plantse0
- Outcome
- acidity and dry substancese0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the properties of the fruits of grafted plants were similar to those of the control plants in terms of acidity and dry substances”
e1“tomato grafting”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstocks did not affect tomato fruit pH.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- rootstockse0
- Outcome
- pH value of tomato fruitse0
- Direction
- do not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rootstocks do not affect pH value of tomato fruits”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →grafting · soil: chemistry · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
grafting · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →grafting · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
172 papers more in this group
See all 176 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.