Abstract
Cassava is a staple food mainly produced with low management inputs, causing soil depletion and low yields. The use of organic inputs, such as humic substances (HSs), represents a sustainable alternative to increase cassava growth and production, mainly in semi-arid regions such as the Brazilian Northeast. Thus, the objective was to evaluate the foliar application of a biostimulant based on humic substances on the morphophysiology, production, and mineral nutrient contents of cassava. The biofortified cultivar BRS Dourada was grown under field conditions and foliar application of a biostimulant based on humic substances (BHSs, treated plants) or water (untreated, control). The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with four repetitions. At 225 days after planting, the growth, productivity, and mineral nutrient contents of soil, roots, and leaves were determined. No differences between treated and untreated plants were found for growth and productivity (average 15.2 t ha−1). On the other hand, BHS treatment reduced net carbon assimilation, water use efficiency, and carboxylation efficiency by 34%, 24%, and 47%, respectively. Moreover, BHS treatment reduced nutrient uptake from soil, and Na and K contents in roots and leaves, respectively. A foliar BHS application is not recommended for cassava production in the conditions evaluated here.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar BHS treatment did not change cassava growth or productivity relative to water control; productivity averaged 15.2 t ha−1.
- Taxon
- Cassava
Manihot esculentat0 - Treatment
- biostimulant based on humic substancese0
- Outcome
- growth and productivitye1
- Direction
- No differencese1
- Value
- 15.2 t ha−1e1
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“foliar application of a biostimulant based on humic substances (BHSs, treated plants) or water (untreated, control)”
e1“No differences between treated and untreated plants were found for growth and productivity (average 15.2 t ha−1)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
BHS reduced net carbon assimilation by 34%.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- BHS treatmente0
- Outcome
- net carbon assimilatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 34%e0
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BHS treatment reduced net carbon assimilation, water use efficiency, and carboxylation efficiency by 34%, 24%, and 47%, respectively”
e1“water (untreated, control)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
BHS reduced water use efficiency by 24%.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- BHS treatmente0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BHS treatment reduced net carbon assimilation, water use efficiency, and carboxylation efficiency by 34%, 24%, and 47%, respectively”
e1“water (untreated, control)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
BHS reduced carboxylation efficiency by 47%.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- BHS treatmente0
- Outcome
- carboxylation efficiencye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 47%e0
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BHS treatment reduced net carbon assimilation, water use efficiency, and carboxylation efficiency by 34%, 24%, and 47%, respectively”
e1“water (untreated, control)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
BHS reduced cassava nutrient uptake from soil.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- BHS treatmente0
- Outcome
- nutrient uptake from soile0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BHS treatment reduced nutrient uptake from soil”
e1“water (untreated, control)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
BHS reduced Na content in cassava roots.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Treatment
- BHS treatmente0
- Outcome
- Na and K contents in roots and leavese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BHS treatment reduced nutrient uptake from soil, and Na and K contents in roots and leaves, respectively”
e1“water (untreated, control)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
BHS reduced K content in cassava leaves.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Organ / stage
- leavese0
- Treatment
- BHS treatmente0
- Outcome
- K contents in roots and leavese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- water (untreated, control)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“BHS treatment reduced nutrient uptake from soil, and Na and K contents in roots and leaves, respectively”
e1“water (untreated, control)”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors do not recommend foliar BHS application for cassava under the evaluated conditions.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Outcome
- foliar BHS application is not recommendede0
- Qualifier
- conditions evaluated heree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A foliar BHS application is not recommended for cassava production in the conditions evaluated here”
The same questions in other papers
other · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.