Abstract
A study was undertaken in order to quantify the effects of rootstock and irrigation level on the rooting pattern of fertigated apple trees. A profile trench observation method was used to map the number and location of root intersections at two planes relative to drip emitters for NP-fertigated McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh). Four replicates of all combinations of three rootstocks (M.9, M.26 and M.7, planted in 1990) and two irrigation treatments [F1 (daily, watered to field capacity) and F2 (weekly, watered to 50% available soil water capacity, imposed in 1991)] were investigated after the 1994 growing season. Dwarfing rootstocks and F2-irrigation had lower top vigour and yield per tree. Cumulative yield efficiency was greater for trees on dwarfing rootstock but was unaffected by irrigation treatment. Root numbers per observation plane paralleled rootstock vigour, being lowest for M.9 and greatest for M.7. No effect of irrigation on root number was observed. Root distribution was affected by an interaction between rootstock and irrigation treatment with average root location moving closer to the surface and emitter for the dwarfing rootstocks M.9 and M.26 but not for M.7 under F1-irrigation. Key words: Vigour, yield, drip emitter, root number and distribution
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
Dwarfing rootstocks had lower top vigour and yield per tree.
- Taxon
- apple trees
Malus domesticat0 - Material
- Dwarfing rootstockse0
- Outcome
- top vigour and yield per treee0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“Dwarfing rootstocks and F2-irrigation had lower top vigour and yield per tree.”
Claim · model-written summary
F2 irrigation had lower top vigour and yield per tree.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- F2-irrigatione0
- Outcome
- top vigour and yield per treee0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“Dwarfing rootstocks and F2-irrigation had lower top vigour and yield per tree.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative yield efficiency was greater on dwarfing rootstocks.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Material
- dwarfing rootstocke0
- Outcome
- Cumulative yield efficiencye0
- Direction
- greatere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“Cumulative yield efficiency was greater for trees on dwarfing rootstock”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation treatment did not alter cumulative yield efficiency.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparatorOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“was unaffected by irrigation treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Root numbers were lowest for M.9 and greatest for M.7.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Material
- M.9e0
- Outcome
- Root numbers per observation planee0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- M.7e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“Root numbers per observation plane paralleled rootstock vigour, being lowest for M.9 and greatest for M.7.”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation had no observed effect on root number.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- root numbere0
- Direction
- No effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“No effect of irrigation on root number was observed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under F1 irrigation, root locations moved closer to the surface and emitter for M.9 and M.26, but not M.7.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Material
- M.9 and M.26e0
- Treatment
- F1-irrigatione0
- Outcome
- average root locatione0
- Direction
- moving closere0
- Comparator
- M.7e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“McIntosh apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh)”
e0“Root distribution was affected by an interaction between rootstock and irrigation treatment with average root location moving closer to the surface and emitter for the dwarfing rootstocks M.9 and M.26 but not for M.7 under F1-irrigation.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 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.