Abstract
Abstract In a trial with Greengage European plum ( Prunus domestica L.) grown over a 20‐year period, an analysis of the final 15 years showed that there was no significant difference in growth rate between trees infected with plum line pattern, apple chlorotic leaf spot, and Prunus necrotic ringspot viruses, and trees infected with Prunus necrotic ringspot virus alone. However, over 8 years of cropping, the overall loss of yield as a result of virus infection was 20%. In another trial with Billington Japanese plum ( P. salicina Lindl.), trees free from virus infection were compared with trees infected with a single virus or with several viruses in combination. Over a 9‐year period, the rate of growth was adversely affected only in trees infected with the line pattern strain of plum line pattern virus in combination with Prunus necrotic ringspot and apple chlorotic leaf spot viruses. Over a 5‐year cropping period, either of 2 strains of plum line pattern virus combined with Prunus necrotic ring‐spot and apple chlorotic leaf spot viruses significantly reduced yield. When trees were infected singly with either Prunus necrotic ringspot or apple chlorotic leaf spot, or with a combination of Prunus necrotic ringspot and prune dwarf viruses, yields were not affected.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Greengage growth rate did not differ significantly between mixed and single virus infections.
- Taxon
- Greengage
Prunus domestica subsp. italicat0 - Treatment
- plum line pattern, apple chlorotic leaf spot, and Prunus necrotic ringspot virusese0
- Outcome
- growth ratee0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- Prunus necrotic ringspot virus alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference in growth rate between trees infected with plum line pattern, apple chlorotic leaf spot, and Prunus necrotic ringspot viruses, and trees infected with Prunus necrotic ringspot virus alone.”
t0“Greengage”
Claim · model-written summary
Virus infection reduced Greengage yield by 20% over eight years.
- Taxon
- GreengagePrunus domestica subsp. italicat0
- Treatment
- virus infectione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- losse0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“over 8 years of cropping, the overall loss of yield as a result of virus infection was 20%.”
t0“Greengage”
Claim · model-written summary
The three-virus combination with the line pattern strain adversely affected Billington growth rate.
- Taxon
- Billingtont0
- Treatment
- line pattern strain of plum line pattern virus in combination with Prunus necrotic ringspot and apple chlorotic leaf spot virusese0
- Outcome
- rate of growthe0
- Direction
- adversely affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the rate of growth was adversely affected only in trees infected with the line pattern strain of plum line pattern virus in combination with Prunus necrotic ringspot and apple chlorotic leaf spot viruses.”
t0“Billington”
Claim · model-written summary
Either plum line pattern strain with the other two viruses significantly reduced Billington yield.
- Taxon
- Billingtont0
- Treatment
- 2 strains of plum line pattern virus combined with Prunus necrotic ring‐spot and apple chlorotic leaf spot virusese0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“either of 2 strains of plum line pattern virus combined with Prunus necrotic ring‐spot and apple chlorotic leaf spot viruses significantly reduced yield.”
t0“Billington”
Claim · model-written summary
Single Prunus necrotic ringspot infection did not affect Billington yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“When trees were infected singly with either Prunus necrotic ringspot or apple chlorotic leaf spot, or with a combination of Prunus necrotic ringspot and prune dwarf viruses, yields were not affected.”
t0“Billington”
Claim · model-written summary
Single apple chlorotic leaf spot infection did not affect Billington yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“When trees were infected singly with either Prunus necrotic ringspot or apple chlorotic leaf spot, or with a combination of Prunus necrotic ringspot and prune dwarf viruses, yields were not affected.”
t0“Billington”
Claim · model-written summary
Prunus necrotic ringspot with prune dwarf viruses did not affect Billington yield.
- Taxon
- Billingtont0
- Treatment
- combination of Prunus necrotic ringspot and prune dwarf virusese0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“When trees were infected singly with either Prunus necrotic ringspot or apple chlorotic leaf spot, or with a combination of Prunus necrotic ringspot and prune dwarf viruses, yields were not affected.”
t0“Billington”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Prunus domestica (plum)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.