Keywords
- aboveground growth
- combined substrate
- physiology and biochemistry
- underground growth
In this study, a variety of raw materials (garden soil, coconut bran, peat, perlite and vermiculite) were combined. We compared the growth of tissue-cultured seedlings of
The seedlings grew in the culture bottle by tissue culture, and the seed hypocotyl was the explant. The medium of callus induction was Murashige and Skoog (MS) + 6-Benzylaminopurine (6-BA) 1.0 mg · L−1 + 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) 0.5 mg · L−1; the proliferation medium of callus was MS + 6-BA 0.5 mg · L−1 + NAA 2.0 mg · L−1; the induction medium of clustered buds was MS + 6-BA 0.5 mg · L−1 + NAA 0.1 mg · L−1 + Kinetin (KT) 0.1 mg · L−1; the suitable medium for strong seedlings was MS + 6-BA 0.2 mg · L−1 + indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) 1.0 mg · L−1; and the suitable rooting medium was 1/2 MS + NAA 2.0 mg · L−1 (Li et al., 2021). The average seedling height was 6.82 ± 0.52 cm, with a stem diameter of 0.74 ± 0.10 mm and more than two roots in the Key Laboratory of Plant Resource Conservation and Germplasm Innovation in Mountainous Region (Ministry of Education) of Guizhou University (Guizhou, China).
In the experiment, garden soil, coconut bran, peat, perlite and vermiculite were mixed according to a certain volume ratio to make seven combination substrates (Table 1). Among them, T1 is the control; T2, T3, T4 and T5 are the mixture of different raw materials and soil; and T6 and T7 are the soilless cultivation of different raw materials. The garden soil used was from Huaxi land (Guiyang, China); the coconut bran used was from Galuku (Sydney, Australia); the peat used was from Pindstrup (Shanghai, China); the perlite used was from Xinyang Jinhualan Mining Co., Ltd (Xinyang, China); and the vermiculite used was from Shijiazhuang Chenxing Industrial Co., Ltd (Shijiazhuag, China).
Combination ratio of different substrates.
Code | Volume ratio (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Garden soil | Perlite | Coconut bran | Vermiculite | Peat | |
T1 | 100.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
T2 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 0 | 0 |
T3 | 20.00 | 0 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 0 |
T4 | 20.00 | 0 | 0 | 40.00 | 40.00 |
T5 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 0 | 0 | 40.00 |
T6 | 0 | 33.33 | 33.33 | 33.33 | 0 |
T7 | 0 | 33.33 | 0 | 33.33 | 33.33 |
T1: garden soil 100%; T2: garden soil:perlite:coconut bran = 20%: 40%:40%; T3: garden soil:coconut bran:vermiculite = 20%:40%:40%; T4: garden soil:vermiculite:peat = 20%:40%:40%; T5: garden soil: perlite:peat = 20%:40%:40%; T6: perlite:coconut bran:vermiculite = 33.33%:33.33%:33.33%; T7: perlite:vermiculite:peat = 33.33%: 33.33%:33.33%.
The air-dried substrates were collected before transplanting and planting, and the bulk density, total porosity, aeration porosity, water retaining porosity, void ratio, pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined according to the method of Shi et al. (2016). The physical and chemical properties of each combined substrate are shown in Table 2.
The physical and chemical properties of different substrates combinations.
Code | Bulk density (g · cm−3) | Total porosity (%) | Aeration porosity (%) | Water retaining porosity (%) | Void ratio | EC (mS · cm−1) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means ± SD | |||||||
T1 | 0.98 ± 0.03 a | 42.67 ± 0.57 e | 7.44 ± 0.10 e | 35.25 ± 0.67 d | 0.21 ± 0.01 e | 1.60 ± 0.02 a | 5.79 ± 0.01 e |
T2 | 0.38 ± 0.00 cd | 55.58 ± 1.20 d | 13.16 ± 0.64 d | 42.42 ± 0.98 bc | 0.31 ± 0.01 cd | 0.78 ± 0.01 b | 5.93 ± 0.08 d |
T3 | 0.46 ± 0.01 b | 59.19 ± 2.09 bc | 11.10 ± 0.46 d | 48.09 ± 2.55 a | 0.23 ± 0.02 de | 0.67 ± 0.02 c | 5.98 ± 0.04 cd |
T4 | 0.43 ± 0.03 bc | 59.31 ± 2.73 bc | 16.12 ± 0.87 c | 43.18 ± 3.60 b | 0.38 ± 0.05 c | 0.60 ± 0.03 d | 6.08 ± 0.04 b |
T5 | 0.36 ± 0.00 d | 57.60 ± 0.47 c | 19.39 ± 1.45 b | 38.21 ± 1.91 cd | 0.51 ± 0.06 ab | 0.51 ± 0.02 e | 6.06 ± 0.03 bc |
T6 | 0.23 ± 0.05 e | 65.07 ± 0.61 a | 21.30 ± 1.25 ab | 43.77 ± 0.65 ab | 0.49 ± 0.04 b | 0.51 ± 0.01 e | 6.30 ± 0.01 a |
T7 | 0.24 ± 0.03 e | 62.01 ± 1.90 ab | 22.72 ± 0.86 a | 39.29 ± 1.03 bcd | 0.58 ± 0.01 a | 0.49 ± 0.01 f | 6.32 ± 0.02 a |
Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences between treatments (
EC, electrical conductivity.
The tissue-cultured seedlings were transplanted in plastic nutrient pots with a diameter of 17 cm and a height of 16 cm. Three plants were planted in each pot, each had treatment was 30 pots. Place outdoors, water uniformly every 7 days.
After the tissue-cultured seedlings of
Sixty days after planting, plants were grown into stability and survival rates were counted. Three plants with basically similar growth were selected from each treatment to determine the physiological and biochemical values. Total soluble protein content was determined by the method of Bradford (1976), using bovine serum albumin (BSA) (Takara, Beijing, China) as standard. Proline content determination was performed according to the method of Bates et al. (1973). Soluble sugar content was measured based on the anthrone method (Morris, 1948). Malondialdehyde (MDA) content was determined by the thiobarbituric acid reaction according to Heath and Packer (1968). Total chlorophyll as well as chlorophyll
Data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures to test the significant effect of all the variables investigated, using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Means were separated using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) as the test of significance at
Using the method of membership function in fuzzy math, the membership values of each index in seven different combination substrates were calculated, and the membership values of each index were accumulated to obtain the average value. The adaptability of
If there was a positive correlation between the indexes, we used X = (Xi - Xmin)/(Xmax - Xmin) to calculate the specific membership function value of each index under each combined substrate.
If there was a negative correlation between the indexes, we used X = 1 - (Xi - Xmin)/(Xmax - Xmin) to calculate the specific membership function value of each index under each combined substrate.
The main task of substrate screening was a high survival rate. The effects of different combinations of substrates on the survival rate of tissue-cultured seedlings of
Figure 1
The effect of different combinations of substrates on the survival rate of

The effect of different combinations of substrates on the growth of
Figure 2
Effects of different combined substrates on above-ground growth of

It can be seen from Figure 3 that there are obvious differences in root development under different combinations of substrates. Compared with other combination substrates, T2 and T6 had uniform root distribution, large amounts of roots and many branches, the foundation begins to expand into spindle root tubers and the root tip was bright white; T7 and T5 had moderate rooting and similar root growth; T3 and T4 had few hairy roots, and the taproot was thick and hard; T1 had the least number of roots and branches, with short and thick roots and poor growth. Overall, the root system of tissue-cultured seedlings of
Figure 3
Root morphology of

The effects of different combination substrates on the root parameters of
Figure 4
Effects of different combined substrates on underground parameters of

Different combinations of substrates had significant effects on soluble protein, soluble sugar, proline, MDA, total chlorophyll content and root vigour of tissue-cultured seedlings of
Figure 5
Effects of different combined substrates on physiology and biochemistry indexes of

It can be seen from Table 3 that the survival rate of
Correlation analysis between physical properties of substrate and growth parameters and physiology and biochemistry indexes of tissue-cultured seedlings of
Index | Bulk density | Total porosity | Aeration porosity | Water retaining porosity | Void ratio | Conductivity value | pH value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Survival rate | −0.987** | 0.912** | 0.771* | 0.517 | 0.668 | −0.952** | 0.729 |
Plant height | −0.853* | 0.730 | 0.631 | 0.395 | 0.538 | −0.754 | 0.579 |
Stem diameter | −0.464 | 0.600 | 0.244 | 0.692 | 0.086 | −0.393 | 0.486 |
Fresh weight | −0.701 | 0.608 | 0.593 | 0.239 | 0.505 | −0.555 | 0.524 |
Dry weight | −0.716 | 0.617 | 0.629 | 0.207 | 0.547 | −0.563 | 0.559 |
Root fresh weight | −0.658 | 0.653 | 0.537 | 0.390 | 0.410 | −0.525 | 0.557 |
Root dry weight | −0.773* | 0.698 | 0.648 | 0.319 | 0.544 | −0.613 | 0.631 |
Root length | −0.555 | 0.597 | 0.553 | 0.274 | 0.440 | −0.407 | 0.629 |
Root surface area | −0.553 | 0.569 | 0.448 | 0.366 | 0.323 | −0.418 | 0.486 |
Root diameter | −0.598 | 0.596 | 0.308 | 0.599 | 0.163 | −0.551 | 0.287 |
Root volume | −0.508 | 0.482 | 0.361 | 0.334 | 0.247 | −0.364 | 0.359 |
Soluble protein | −0.749 | 0.696 | 0.315 | 0.758* | 0.175 | −0.698 | 0.375 |
Soluble sugar | −0.692 | 0.648 | 0.827* | −0.004 | 0.795* | −0.637 | 0.715 |
MDA | 0.681 | −0.543 | −0.544 | −0.193 | −0.470 | 0.505 | −0.465 |
Total chlorophyll | −0.449 | 0.373 | 0.171 | 0.404 | 0.057 | −0.350 | 0.129 |
Proline | −0.760* | 0.648 | 0.566 | 0.342 | 0.466 | −0.609 | 0.509 |
Root vigour | −0.568 | 0.610 | 0.252 | 0.697 | 0.097 | −0.580 | 0.248 |
Means significant (
Means extremely significant (
MDA, malondialdehyde.
The membership function method is used to comprehensively evaluate the quality of
Membership function values and comprehensive ranking.
Evaluation index | Membership function values of each evaluation index of seven substrates | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | |
Survival rate | 0.00 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 1.00 |
Plant height | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.77 | 0.79 |
Stem diameter | 0.00 | 0.29 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.57 |
Fresh weight | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.54 | 1.00 | 0.36 |
Dry weight | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.53 | 1.00 | 0.41 |
Root fresh weight | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 0.25 |
Root dry weight | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.46 | 1.00 | 0.51 |
Total root length | 0.00 | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 0.19 |
Root surface area | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.13 |
Root diameter | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 1.00 | 0.23 |
Root volume | 0.00 | 0.61 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.32 | 1.00 | 0.05 |
Soluble protein | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.87 |
Soluble sugar | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.82 | 1.00 | 0.47 |
MDA | 0.00 | 0.964 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 1 | 0.46 |
Total chlorophyll | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.17 | 0.70 | 0.28 | 0.75 | 0.15 |
Proline | 0.00 | 0.94 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
Root vigour | 0.00 | 0.87 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.13 |
Average value | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.95 | 0.42 |
Ranking | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
T1: garden soil 100%; T2: garden soil:perlite:coconut bran = 20%:40%:40%; T3: garden soil:coconut bran:vermiculite = 20%:40%:40%; T4: garden soil:vermiculite: peat = 20%:40%:40%; T5: garden soil:perlite:peat = 20%:40%:40%; T6: perlite:coconut bran:vermiculite = 33.33%:33.33%:33.33%; T7: perlite:vermiculite:peat = 33.33%:33.33%:33.33%.
MDA, malondialdehyde.
Figure 6
Growth status of

Soil is the material basis for plant growth. It plays the role of fixed support, water retention and air permeability, provides stable and appropriate conditions such as water, gas and nutrition for plant roots and directly affects plant growth and development (Atiyeh et al., 2000). Suitable physical and chemical properties are conducive to plant growth. In practical applications, several substrates are often combined to make the bulk density, porosity, pH and conductivity of the cultivation substrate reach the appropriate range, so as to improve the survival rate of seedlings. Except for T1 substrate (garden soil), the survival rate of each substrate was >80%, and the survival rate of T7 (peat:perlite:vermiculite = 33.33%:33.33%:33.33%) and T6 (coconut bran:perlite:vermiculite =33.33%:33.33%: 33.33%) was the highest. Adding the combined substrate of coconut bran to the strong seedling cultivation of ginger seedlings improved the survival rate of seedling transplantation (Mohd et al., 2015). The addition of a combined substrate of peat also improved the survival rate and growth of purslane (
The substrate composition in soilless culture has a significant impact on plant growth (Qiu et al., 2014). Previous studies have used soilless substrates for agricultural production and cultivation. In studies into the cultivation substrates of ginger (Mohd et al., 2015) and strawberry (Recamales et al., 2007), the use of coconut bran was found to be conducive to the growth of crops and the increase of yield. Compared with other substrates, it had better growth status and comprehensive quality and was the best choice for combined substrates. The physical properties of the substrate have a great impact on plant growth (Alves et al., 2011). The root system of the plant is the main absorption organ of fertiliser and water, and so the growth and root vigour of the root system will directly affect the growth and nutritional status of the aboveground of the plant (Vamerali et al., 2021). In this experiment, 60 days after tissue-cultured seedlings of
Malondialdehyde is an important indicator of plant membrane lipid peroxidation. When plants are subjected to stress, the MDA content will increase (Farooq et al., 2010). In this experiment, the MDA content in T1 substrate was the highest, indicating that the garden soil had resulted in poor aboveground and underground growth morphology and reduced survival rate. Soluble protein, soluble sugar and proline are osmotic regulators in plants, which often reflect the nutritional status and quality of plants (Zhao et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2016). The chlorophyll content is an indicator of plant photosynthesis (Mandal and Dutta, 2020), and root vigour reflects the strength of the plant underground in absorbing mineral elements from soil to supply the growth of aboveground (Palta and Watt, 2009). These indexes can be used to evaluate the growth status and comprehensive quality of tissue-cultured seedlings. In T6 substrate,
According to the membership function, the indexes of tissue-cultured seedlings with different combination substrates were comprehensively evaluated. T6 ranked the highest, and its score was significantly higher than that of other substrates, indicating that the T6 combination substrate was more conducive to the improvement of comprehensive quality and growth and development of tissue-cultured seedlings of
In this experiment, the combined substrates suitable for the growth of tissue-cultured seedlings of
Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Membership function values and comprehensive ranking.
Evaluation index | Membership function values of each evaluation index of seven substrates | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | |
Survival rate | 0.00 | 0.95 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 1.00 |
Plant height | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.42 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.77 | 0.79 |
Stem diameter | 0.00 | 0.29 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.57 |
Fresh weight | 0.00 | 0.76 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 0.54 | 1.00 | 0.36 |
Dry weight | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.53 | 1.00 | 0.41 |
Root fresh weight | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 0.25 |
Root dry weight | 0.00 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.46 | 1.00 | 0.51 |
Total root length | 0.00 | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 1.00 | 0.19 |
Root surface area | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.13 |
Root diameter | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 1.00 | 0.23 |
Root volume | 0.00 | 0.61 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.32 | 1.00 | 0.05 |
Soluble protein | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.87 |
Soluble sugar | 0.00 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.29 | 0.82 | 1.00 | 0.47 |
MDA | 0.00 | 0.964 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 1 | 0.46 |
Total chlorophyll | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.17 | 0.70 | 0.28 | 0.75 | 0.15 |
Proline | 0.00 | 0.94 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
Root vigour | 0.00 | 0.87 | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.13 |
Average value | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.49 | 0.95 | 0.42 |
Ranking | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
Combination ratio of different substrates.
Code | Volume ratio (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Garden soil | Perlite | Coconut bran | Vermiculite | Peat | |
T1 | 100.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
T2 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 0 | 0 |
T3 | 20.00 | 0 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 0 |
T4 | 20.00 | 0 | 0 | 40.00 | 40.00 |
T5 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 0 | 0 | 40.00 |
T6 | 0 | 33.33 | 33.33 | 33.33 | 0 |
T7 | 0 | 33.33 | 0 | 33.33 | 33.33 |
Correlation analysis between physical properties of substrate and growth parameters and physiology and biochemistry indexes of tissue-cultured seedlings of A. cochinchinensis.
Index | Bulk density | Total porosity | Aeration porosity | Water retaining porosity | Void ratio | Conductivity value | pH value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Survival rate | −0.987 |
0.912 |
0.771 |
0.517 | 0.668 | −0.952 |
0.729 |
Plant height | −0.853 |
0.730 | 0.631 | 0.395 | 0.538 | −0.754 | 0.579 |
Stem diameter | −0.464 | 0.600 | 0.244 | 0.692 | 0.086 | −0.393 | 0.486 |
Fresh weight | −0.701 | 0.608 | 0.593 | 0.239 | 0.505 | −0.555 | 0.524 |
Dry weight | −0.716 | 0.617 | 0.629 | 0.207 | 0.547 | −0.563 | 0.559 |
Root fresh weight | −0.658 | 0.653 | 0.537 | 0.390 | 0.410 | −0.525 | 0.557 |
Root dry weight | −0.773 |
0.698 | 0.648 | 0.319 | 0.544 | −0.613 | 0.631 |
Root length | −0.555 | 0.597 | 0.553 | 0.274 | 0.440 | −0.407 | 0.629 |
Root surface area | −0.553 | 0.569 | 0.448 | 0.366 | 0.323 | −0.418 | 0.486 |
Root diameter | −0.598 | 0.596 | 0.308 | 0.599 | 0.163 | −0.551 | 0.287 |
Root volume | −0.508 | 0.482 | 0.361 | 0.334 | 0.247 | −0.364 | 0.359 |
Soluble protein | −0.749 | 0.696 | 0.315 | 0.758 |
0.175 | −0.698 | 0.375 |
Soluble sugar | −0.692 | 0.648 | 0.827 |
−0.004 | 0.795 |
−0.637 | 0.715 |
MDA | 0.681 | −0.543 | −0.544 | −0.193 | −0.470 | 0.505 | −0.465 |
Total chlorophyll | −0.449 | 0.373 | 0.171 | 0.404 | 0.057 | −0.350 | 0.129 |
Proline | −0.760 |
0.648 | 0.566 | 0.342 | 0.466 | −0.609 | 0.509 |
Root vigour | −0.568 | 0.610 | 0.252 | 0.697 | 0.097 | −0.580 | 0.248 |
The physical and chemical properties of different substrates combinations.
Code | Bulk density (g · cm−3) | Total porosity (%) | Aeration porosity (%) | Water retaining porosity (%) | Void ratio | EC (mS · cm−1) | pH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means ± SD | |||||||
T1 | 0.98 ± 0.03 a | 42.67 ± 0.57 e | 7.44 ± 0.10 e | 35.25 ± 0.67 d | 0.21 ± 0.01 e | 1.60 ± 0.02 a | 5.79 ± 0.01 e |
T2 | 0.38 ± 0.00 cd | 55.58 ± 1.20 d | 13.16 ± 0.64 d | 42.42 ± 0.98 bc | 0.31 ± 0.01 cd | 0.78 ± 0.01 b | 5.93 ± 0.08 d |
T3 | 0.46 ± 0.01 b | 59.19 ± 2.09 bc | 11.10 ± 0.46 d | 48.09 ± 2.55 a | 0.23 ± 0.02 de | 0.67 ± 0.02 c | 5.98 ± 0.04 cd |
T4 | 0.43 ± 0.03 bc | 59.31 ± 2.73 bc | 16.12 ± 0.87 c | 43.18 ± 3.60 b | 0.38 ± 0.05 c | 0.60 ± 0.03 d | 6.08 ± 0.04 b |
T5 | 0.36 ± 0.00 d | 57.60 ± 0.47 c | 19.39 ± 1.45 b | 38.21 ± 1.91 cd | 0.51 ± 0.06 ab | 0.51 ± 0.02 e | 6.06 ± 0.03 bc |
T6 | 0.23 ± 0.05 e | 65.07 ± 0.61 a | 21.30 ± 1.25 ab | 43.77 ± 0.65 ab | 0.49 ± 0.04 b | 0.51 ± 0.01 e | 6.30 ± 0.01 a |
T7 | 0.24 ± 0.03 e | 62.01 ± 1.90 ab | 22.72 ± 0.86 a | 39.29 ± 1.03 bcd | 0.58 ± 0.01 a | 0.49 ± 0.01 f | 6.32 ± 0.02 a |
Agronomic traits, secondary metabolites and element concentrations of Lavandula angustifolia leaves as a response to single or reiterated drought stress: How effective is the previously experienced stress?Screening of composite substrates suitable for tissue-cultured plantlets growth of Asparagus cochinchinensis (Lour.) MerrComparative RNA-Seq analysis to understand anthocyanin biosynthesis and regulations in Curcuma alismatifolia Bibliometric analysis of strawberry ( Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) research from Plant Sciences category based on Web of SciencePerceived functions of allotment gardens and their importance during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland Zn2+ induces changes in activities of mitochondrial respiratory chain complexes and emissions of floral volatiles in Dendrobium huoshanense Therapeutic horticulture as a potential tool of preventive geriatric medicine improving health, well-being and life quality – A systematic review Retraction Outcomes of foliar iodine application on growth, minerals and antioxidants in tomato plants under salt stress Differences in health-promoting properties in civilisation diseases of Agaricus bisporus fruiting bodies harvested from three flushes