Stress resistance of treatments with respect to hydration at three levels
The physiological and morphological response of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Paspartu) to water stress was evaluated across three irrigation levels (50%, 75%, and 100%). A one-way factorial ANOVA was conducted to determine the main effects of microbial treatments (Treatments (T): TI: Microbial consortium, TII: Trichoderma harzianum, and TC: Control), days after sowing (DAS), and their interaction (T - DAS) on the performance parameters: Leaf Number (LN), Leaf Length (LL), Leaf Width (LW), Stem Diameter (SD), and Plant Height (PH). During the initial establishment phase, baseline measurements indicated uniform seedling development across all groups before the onset of differential irrigation, arguing that the results obtained are due to the factors analyzed (Figure 6). The average plant height of the three treatments at this phenological stage was 35.58 mm, with no statistically significant difference. Similarly, the number of true leaves, leaf length, leaf width, and stem diameter showed no significant differences (Table 1).
The results of the water stress treatments at 50% irrigation showed a statistically significant difference in the number of leaves in treatment 3, which was not inoculated with microorganisms (TC), presenting a lower number of leaves compared to treatments I and II (Figure 7). Treatment I, in addition to having a greater number of leaves, has shorter and narrower leaves, as well as a smaller stem diameter compared to the control treatment (Table 2). No statistically significant differences were found in the plant height variable. A thinner stem and smaller leaves are typical adaptations to reduce the transpiration surface and prevent excessive water loss. TC, with fewer but larger leaves, did not achieve the same thermal “defense” efficiency as inoculated plants, which is reflected in higher CWSI values (greater thermal stress). This result confirms the hypothesis of the biostimulant effect of microorganisms. While severe water stress (50%) normally induces leaf senescence and stops the formation of new primordia to conserve energy, treatments I and II maintained cell division. The inoculated microorganisms stimulate the plant defense system and apparently act as physiological buffers, allowing plants to continue producing leaf biomass even under severe water restriction.
Table 3 shows the results of water stress at 75% irrigation at field capacity. Plants inoculated with Treatment I, Treatment II, and Treatment III showed statistically significant differences in the number of leaves (TI: 22.62%, TIII: 6.41% fewer leaves than TII), as shown in Figure 8. For the LL variable, there was also a statistically significant difference between treatments (TI: 29.35%, TIII: 27.91% greater leaf length than TII). With regard to the LW variable, TIII and TI did not show a significant difference between treatments, but TII showed a 37% reduction in width compared to TIII and TI. It is worth noting that there was a statistically significant difference in stem diameter between treatments TI and TIII (TI: 11.76% greater stem diameter), with no significant difference with TII. In terms of plant height, treatments 1 and 2 did not differ significantly; however, TIII had a 9.5% lower plant height compared to TI and TII. These results show that TI acts as a structural enhancer. A larger stem diameter is a key indicator of a more robust vascular system (xylem/phloem), which facilitates the transport of water and nutrients under water stress. This structural vigor allows lettuce to maintain a higher rate of leaf differentiation and vertical growth, overcoming the limitations imposed by moderate stress. There is a marked contrast between TI and TII. While TI promotes large leaves and a thick stem (maximum biomass), TII appears to induce a compact morphology (shorter, narrower leaves). Physiologically, TI and TIII strategies suggest that, at 75% irrigation, the plant still attempts to maximize light interception through leaf expansion. However, TIII (Control) does so at the expense of lower height and a thinner stem, making it more vulnerable than TI. 75% irrigation represents a barrier to the development of optimal control. Without microbial support, lettuce reduces its vertical growth rate and new leaf production to conserve energy, confirming that inoculation is necessary even at stress levels that do not appear lethal.
On the other hand, Table 4 shows the morphological results when plants are subjected to field capacity irrigation (100% FC). Treatments 1 and 2 do not differ significantly from each other, but they differ from the control treatment, which had 10.27% fewer leaves. Treatments I and II showed significant differences in the leaf length variable (TII: 25.5% less length), TIII showed no significant differences with TI or TII, and with respect to leaf width, no significant difference was observed between treatments TII and TIII, but there was a difference with TI, where TII and TIII were 30% less wide than TI. It should be noted that there were no statistically significant differences in stem diameter among treatments. As with leaf width, treatments 2 and 3 showed no significant differences in plant height, with TI being 10.6% shorter (Figure 9). Under optimal irrigation conditions, microorganisms function as metabolism accelerators.
The increase in the number of leaves suggests stimulation of cell division in the apical meristems, probably mediated by phytohormone synthesis (such as cytokinins and auxins) by the inoculants, allowing the plant to produce more photosynthetic units in the same period. Treatment I induces a lateral expansion strategy. Leaves that are 30% wider dramatically increase the light-interception surface area, translating into greater photosynthetic efficiency per unit area. In contrast, Treatment II appears to promote a more compact morphology (shorter leaves), which may be associated with a higher biomass density per leaf. The reduction in height of TI, combined with its horizontal leaf expansion, indicates a redistribution of assimilates towards commercial biomass (leaves) rather than the vertical axis. For lettuce production, this architecture is ideal, as it produces a denser, heavier rosette. The stability of the stem diameter confirms that, at 100% irrigation, the vascular structure is sufficient for all treatments.
Figure 10 shows the CWSI results based on the images taken during the trial (Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13). The image shows nine graphs comparing the Treatment vs. the % irrigation applied to each tray. Each data point is represented by an open circle, while the dashed trend line shows how the CWSI evolves over time, and the shaded line (gray) indicates the confidence interval, i.e., the uncertainty of the model. In relation to the trend in CWSI values during phase 2, the vertical axis indicates the CWSI value, while the horizontal axis indicates the number of days elapsed. If the CWSI value approaches 1, this indicates maximum stress on the plant, and 0 indicates the opposite. The shaded band indicates variability; the narrower it is, the greater the accuracy of the data. The results show that in graphs 4, 5, and 6 (PROTRI), the trend is slightly positive and gradual, although there is greater uncertainty at 50% irrigation than at 100%. The TI-100% FC, TII-100% FC, and TII-75% irrigated appear to be the most effective in reducing water stress, according to the CWSI index. The shaded area is lower and more stable than the other treatments, and its trend line.

Figure 1: Procedure for assessing the impact of microorganisms on water stress for lettuce cultivation. Schematic flowchart illustrating the experimental design from inoculation to thermal data acquisition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Experimental units with first true leaves. Close-up of seedlings in the germination trays (11 mL per cavity). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Experimental design with treatments. PROTRI Layout of the nine trays inside the bioclimatic chamber. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Bioclimatic chamber. View of the controlled environment equipment used for the trial. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Bioclimatic chamber with experimental units. Final arrangement of the seedlings under the LED light system. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Efficiency of treatments at plant height in the first days of germination. Represents the initial growth response of seedlings measured in centimeters (mm) across different microbial treatments. Error bars represent the variability between replicates. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7: Leaf number in relation to treatments applying 50% irrigation. It shows the Leaf Number (LN) per plant under severe water stress. Data points represent the mean, and error bars indicate the standard deviation (SD) or confidence intervals as specified in the statistical model. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8: Leaf Number in relation to treatments applying 75% irrigation. Comparison of leaf development under moderate water stress. Error bars represent the variability between replicates. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 9: Efficiency of treatments applying 100% irrigation in relation to the plant height. Growth performance under optimal hydration measured in centimeters (mm). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 10: Results of the crop water stress index for the 9 treatments. The Y-axis represents the CWSI (dimensionless, from 0 to 1). Shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence intervals, and dashed lines show the trend over time (Days After Sowing, DAS). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 11: Photograph of a tray hydrated with 100% irrigation, microbial consortium treatment. Visual reference of plant vigor under optimal conditions. Scale bar = 5 cm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 12: Photograph of a dehydrated microbial consortium tray. Visual representation of physiological changes under water deficit. Scale bar = 5 cm. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 13: Photograph of a tray with lettuce plants. Overview of the experimental unit for Romaine lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. Paspartu). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 1: Analysis of variance and table of means in seedlings during emergence. Evaluation of initial vigor across all microbial treatments. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 2: Analysis of variance and table of means. Treatments with 50% irrigation. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) and mean comparisons for growth variables under severe stress. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 3: Analysis of variance and table of means. Treatments with 75% irrigation. Statistical significance (P < 0.05) and mean comparisons for growth variables under severe stress. Please click here to download this Table.
Table 4: Analysis of variance and table of means. Treatments with 100% irrigation. Performance evaluation under optimal water replacement. Please click here to download this Table.
Supplementary Table 1: Conditions in the bioclimatic chamber. Specifications for temperature, relative humidity, and LED light. Initial specifications for temperature (°C), relative humidity (%), and LED light photoperiod.Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Table 2: Conditions in the bioclimatic chamber after germination. Specifications for temperature, relative humidity, and LED light. Adjusted parameters for the growth stage following initial emergence.Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Table 3: Fertilization program at 26 days after planting and up to 76 days after planting. Detailed chemical composition and timing of nutrient applications.Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary Table 4: Conceptualization of experimental variables. Definitions and operational measurements (units, instruments) for all study parameters.Please click here to download this file.
DATA AVAILABILITY:
Data supporting the findings of this study are uploaded to Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18683142).