Abstract
Due to the increasing presence of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) and its multiple possibilities of use, the influence of different light and several biopreparations based on beneficial fungi and bacteria on hemp’s morphological and physiological properties were examined. Different biopreparations and their combinations were inoculated on hemp seed and/or substrate and grown under blue and white light. A completely randomized block design was conducted in four replications within 30 days. For biopreparation treatment, vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM) in combination with Azotobacter chroococum and Trichoderma spp. were inoculated only on seed or both on seed and in the substrate. Generally, the highest morphological parameters (stem, root and plant length) were recorded on plants in white light and on treatment with applied Trichoderma spp., both on seed and substrate. Blue light negatively affected biopreparation treatments, resulting in lower values of all morphological parameters compared to control. Leaves pigments were higher under blue light, as compared to the white light. At the same time, 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), flavonoids, total flavanol content and phenolic acids were not influenced by light type. Biopreparation treatments did not significantly influence the leaves’ pigments content (Chl a, Chl b and Car), nor the phenolic and flavanol content.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
White light and Trichoderma treatment yielded the highest stem, root and plant lengths.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)
Cannabis sativae1 - Treatment
- white light and on treatment with applied Trichoderma spp.e0
- Interactor
- Trichoderma spp.
Trichodermae0symbiont - Outcome
- stem, root and plant lengthe0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest morphological parameters (stem, root and plant length) were recorded on plants in white light and on treatment with applied Trichoderma spp., both on seed and substrate.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Blue light lowered morphological parameters under biopreparation treatments compared with control.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)Cannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- Blue lighte0
- Outcome
- all morphological parameterse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Blue light negatively affected biopreparation treatments, resulting in lower values of all morphological parameters compared to control.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf pigments were higher under blue than white light.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)Cannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- blue lighte0
- Outcome
- Leaves pigmentse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- white lighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaves pigments were higher under blue light, as compared to the white light.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Light type did not influence DPPH and FRAP antioxidant measures.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)Cannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- light typee0
- Outcome
- 1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)e0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), flavonoids, total flavanol content and phenolic acids were not influenced by light type.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Light type did not influence flavonoids, flavanol content or phenolic acids.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)Cannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- light typee0
- Outcome
- flavonoids, total flavanol content and phenolic acidse0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“flavonoids, total flavanol content and phenolic acids were not influenced by light type.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Biopreparation treatments did not significantly change leaf pigment content.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)Cannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- Biopreparation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaves’ pigments content (Chl a, Chl b and Car)e0
- Direction
- did not significantly influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Biopreparation treatments did not significantly influence the leaves’ pigments content (Chl a, Chl b and Car), nor the phenolic and flavanol content.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Biopreparation treatments did not significantly change phenolic and flavanol content.
- Taxon
- industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)Cannabis sativae1
- Treatment
- Biopreparation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- phenolic and flavanol contente0
- Direction
- did not significantly influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Biopreparation treatments did not significantly influence the leaves’ pigments content (Chl a, Chl b and Car), nor the phenolic and flavanol content.”
e1“industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.)”
The same questions in other papers
Trichoderma · growth · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
light · quality: phytochemicals · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
light · growth · Cannabis sativaPositive and negative results
10 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
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.