Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of two destructive and two nondestructive estimation techniques for two vegetable crops (aroma tomato Solanum lycopersicum L. and green Capsicum annuum L.) in three different environments (open field, lath house and plastic house) to the best method of chlorophyll estimation. After 80 days from sowing chlorophyll estimation was first by nondestructive methods using SPAD (SPAD-502 Plus Konica Minolta Tokyo, Japan) atLEAF chlorophyll meter (at-LEAF FT-GREEN-LLC Willington, DE, USA) instruments, then same leaves were cut and chlorophyll estimation were done by destructive methods using two organic ( 80% acetone and 100% ethanol). Results demonstrate significant differences between SPAD and data for tomato and pepper plants where higher levels with atLEAF instrument comparing to chlorophyll meter. Higher chlorophyll levels were recorded in open field plants comparing to lath and houses plants. Chlorophyll a content was related to carotenoid levels in both destruction methods. was positive correlation between SPAD and atLEAF. Nondestructive methods could be used as an alternative method for destructive methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: