Abstract
The effects of modifying local source-sink relations on fruit and leaf characteristics of young pear trees were evaluated during the 1997 - 1998 growing season. The following treatments were applied: early spur ringing (ESR) from 27 days after full bloom (DAFB), late spur ringing (LSR) from 97 DAFB, early 15 % spur leaf area removal (ELAR) and late 15 % spur leaf area removal (LLAR). ESR and LSR significantly inhibited fruit growth, suggesting that the fruiting spurs were not fully autonomous in their carbon economy. ELAR and LLAR had little effect on fruit size; sink strength was demonstrated here, since the presence of the fruit caused an efficient transfer of photoassimilates. ESR treatment decreased specific leaf mass (SLM) by 23.84 % when measured 94 DAFB. ELAR did not significantly influence SLM. Treatments had no marked influence on fruit quality.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Early spur ringing (ESR) significantly inhibited fruit growth in young pear trees.
- Taxon
- pear trees
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communise0 - Treatment
- ESRe1
- Outcome
- fruit growthe1
- Direction
- inhibitede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“ESR and LSR significantly inhibited fruit growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Late spur ringing (LSR) significantly inhibited fruit growth in young pear trees.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- LSRe1
- Outcome
- fruit growthe1
- Direction
- inhibitede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“ESR and LSR significantly inhibited fruit growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Early 15 % spur leaf area removal (ELAR) had little effect on fruit size in young pear trees.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- ELARe1
- Outcome
- fruit sizee1
- Direction
- little effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“ELAR and LLAR had little effect on fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
Late 15 % spur leaf area removal (LLAR) had little effect on fruit size in young pear trees.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- LLARe1
- Outcome
- fruit sizee1
- Direction
- little effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“ELAR and LLAR had little effect on fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpret that sink strength was demonstrated because the presence of the fruit caused an efficient transfer of photoassimilates.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Organ / stage
- fruite1
- Outcome
- transfer of photoassimilatese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“sink strength was demonstrated here, since the presence of the fruit caused an efficient transfer of photoassimilates”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest that fruiting spurs were not fully autonomous in their carbon economy.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Organ / stage
- fruiting spurse1
- Outcome
- carbon economye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“suggesting that the fruiting spurs were not fully autonomous in their carbon economy”
Claim · model-written summary
Early spur ringing decreased specific leaf mass (SLM) by 23.84 % when measured 94 days after full bloom.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- ESR treatmente1
- Outcome
- specific leaf masse1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 23.84 %e1
- Qualifier
- 94 DAFBe1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“ESR treatment decreased specific leaf mass (SLM) by 23.84 % when measured 94 DAFB”
Claim · model-written summary
Early spur leaf area removal (ELAR) did not significantly influence specific leaf mass.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- ELARe1
- Outcome
- SLMe1
- Direction
- did not significantly influencee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“ELAR did not significantly influence SLM”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatments had no marked influence on fruit quality of young pear trees.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise0
- Treatment
- Treatmentse1
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye1
- Direction
- no marked influencee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“young pear trees”
e1“Treatments had no marked influence on fruit quality”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.