Paper · 1995 · Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant Science

Effects of Plant and Soil Factors on Growth of Young Apple and Blackcurrant Plants

Ivar Dencker; Poul Hansen

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Shoot growth as affected by plant size at planting, peat application in the planting hole, pruning, drip-irrigation and, for apple, specific apple replant disease (SARD) was investigated in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis), using a multifactorial design. In the first year after planting, peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species, with a further interactional increase when both treatments were applied. The extension growth of apple, in contrast to blackcurrant, was positively related to plant size, and the strength of the relationship was distinctly improved when growth conditions were good. Pruning had only small effects on total shoot growth, with a trend towards an increase when growth conditions were poor.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat application enhanced first-year shoot growth in apple.

Material
cv. Elstare1
Treatment
peat applicatione0
Outcome
shoot growthe0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–406 · show in text ↑
e1

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat application enhanced first-year shoot growth in blackcurrant.

Taxon
blackcurrante1
Material
cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevise1
Treatment
peat applicatione0
Outcome
shoot growthe0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–406 · show in text ↑
e1

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip irrigation enhanced first-year shoot growth in apple.

Material
cv. Elstare1
Treatment
drip-irrigatione0
Outcome
shoot growthe0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–406 · show in text ↑
e1

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drip irrigation enhanced first-year shoot growth in blackcurrant.

Taxon
blackcurrante1
Material
cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevise1
Treatment
drip-irrigatione0
Outcome
shoot growthe0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–406 · show in text ↑
e1

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined peat and drip irrigation further increased shoot growth in apple.

Treatment
both treatmentse0
Outcome
shoot growthe1
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with a further interactional increase when both treatments were applied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 408–479 · show in text ↑
e1

“peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–406 · show in text ↑
e2

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined peat and drip irrigation further increased shoot growth in blackcurrant.

Taxon
blackcurrante2
Treatment
both treatmentse0
Outcome
shoot growthe1
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“with a further interactional increase when both treatments were applied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 408–479 · show in text ↑
e1

“peat application and drip-irrigation enhanced shoot growth in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–406 · show in text ↑
e2

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Apple extension growth was positively related to plant size, especially under good growth conditions.

Material
plant sizee0
Outcome
extension growthe0
Direction
positively relatede0
Qualifier
when growth conditions were goode0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The extension growth of apple, in contrast to blackcurrant, was positively related to plant size, and the strength of the relationship was distinctly improved when growth conditions were good”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 481–672 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Blackcurrant extension growth did not show the positive plant-size relation seen in apple.

Taxon
blackcurrante0
Material
plant sizee0
Outcome
extension growthe0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The extension growth of apple, in contrast to blackcurrant, was positively related to plant size”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 481–577 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning had only small effects on total shoot growth, trending upward under poor growth conditions.

Treatment
Pruninge0
Outcome
total shoot growthe0
Direction
increasee0
Qualifier
when growth conditions were poore0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pruning had only small effects on total shoot growth, with a trend towards an increase when growth conditions were poor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–793 · show in text ↑
e1

“in apple (cv. Elstar) and blackcurrant (cvs Ben Lomond and Ben Nevis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–265 · show in text ↑

irrigation · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

67 papers: 52 positive, 15 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

63 papers more in this group

See all 67 papers →

growing medium · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

19 papers: 16 positive, 3 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 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.