Abstract
Trees of apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) with 'Starkspur Supreme Delicious' as the scion grafted on nine different rootstocks (Ottawa 3, M.7 EMLA, M.9 EMLA, M.26 EMLA, M.27 EMLA, M.9, MAC-9, MAC-24, OAR 1) were studied in their 8th and 9th years. Canopy seasonal development and its light interception followed by fisheye (hemispherical) photography showed that rootstock affected the amount of structural wood, the rate of canopy development, and final leaf area. However, rootstock did not affect the sigmoidal pattern of canopy development. Light interception was linearly correlated with tree dimensions and yield. Leaf net photosynthesis (P n ) of trees on dwarfing rootstocks tended to be lower than P n rates of trees on more vigorous rootstocks. Rootstock did not affect the scion P n response to different illumination levels. Shoot leaves, spur leaves on spurs without fruit (S − F), and spur leaves on spurs with fruit (S + F) from trees on M.26 EMLA and OAR 1 showed no differences in P n rates. However, for both rootstocks, shoot leaves had the highest P n rate, S + F the lowest, and S − F leaves had intermediate values. Key words: light interception, fisheye photography, leaf type.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock affected the amount of structural wood.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- amount of structural woode0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rootstock affected the amount of structural wood, the rate of canopy development, and final leaf area”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock affected the rate of canopy development.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- rate of canopy developmente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rootstock affected the amount of structural wood, the rate of canopy development, and final leaf area”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock affected final leaf area.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- final leaf areae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rootstock affected the amount of structural wood, the rate of canopy development, and final leaf area”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock did not affect the sigmoidal canopy development pattern.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- sigmoidal pattern of canopy developmente0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rootstock did not affect the sigmoidal pattern of canopy development”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Light interception was linearly correlated with tree dimensions.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- treee0
- Outcome
- Light interceptione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Light interception was linearly correlated with tree dimensions and yield”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Light interception was linearly correlated with yield.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- treee1
- Outcome
- yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Light interception was linearly correlated with tree dimensions and yield”
e1“Shoot leaves, spur leaves on spurs without fruit (S − F), and spur leaves on spurs with fruit (S + F) from trees on M.26 EMLA and OAR 1 showed no differences in P n rates. However, for both rootstocks, shoot leaves had the highest P n rate, S + F the lowest, and S − F leaves had intermediate values”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Trees on dwarfing rootstocks tended to have lower leaf net photosynthesis than trees on more vigorous rootstocks.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- dwarfing rootstockse0
- Outcome
- Leaf net photosynthesise0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- more vigorous rootstockse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf net photosynthesis (P n ) of trees on dwarfing rootstocks tended to be lower than P n rates of trees on more vigorous rootstocks”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock did not affect the scion photosynthesis response to illumination.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Rootstocke0
- Outcome
- scion P n response to different illumination levelse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rootstock did not affect the scion P n response to different illumination levels”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors reported no photosynthesis differences among shoot and spur leaf types on M.26 EMLA and OAR 1.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- Shoot leaves, spur leaves on spurs without fruit (S − F), and spur leaves on spurs with fruit (S + F)e0
- Outcome
- P n ratese0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot leaves, spur leaves on spurs without fruit (S − F), and spur leaves on spurs with fruit (S + F) from trees on M.26 EMLA and OAR 1 showed no differences in P n rates”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
For both rootstocks, shoot leaves had the highest photosynthesis rate.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- shoot leavese0
- Outcome
- P n ratee0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for both rootstocks, shoot leaves had the highest P n rate”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
For both rootstocks, fruiting spur leaves had the lowest photosynthesis rate.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- S + Fe0
- Outcome
- P n ratee1
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S + F the lowest”
e1“Shoot leaves, spur leaves on spurs without fruit (S − F), and spur leaves on spurs with fruit (S + F) from trees on M.26 EMLA and OAR 1 showed no differences in P n rates. However, for both rootstocks, shoot leaves had the highest P n rate, S + F the lowest, and S − F leaves had intermediate values”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
For both rootstocks, nonfruiting spur leaves had intermediate photosynthesis rates.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- S − F leavese0
- Outcome
- P n ratee1
- Direction
- intermediatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“S − F leaves had intermediate values”
e1“Shoot leaves, spur leaves on spurs without fruit (S − F), and spur leaves on spurs with fruit (S + F) from trees on M.26 EMLA and OAR 1 showed no differences in P n rates. However, for both rootstocks, shoot leaves had the highest P n rate, S + F the lowest, and S − F leaves had intermediate values”
t0“Apple”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · physiology: photosynthesis · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →grafting · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.