Abstract
Abstract Defoliation by goats (leaves plus shoots) during the growing phenophases resulted in a considerable stimulation of leaf and shoot growth relative to non‐defoliated plants. The response differed considerably depending on the intensity and phenophase of defoliation. Plants were most susceptible to defoliation and young shoot removal during the spring flush when carbohydrate levels were at their lowest. During the rest of the growing season carbohydrate levels were high. At these times moderate to heavy (50 % to 75 % leaf removal) defoliations resulted in the greatest leaf and shoot growth. In contrast, the initial and continuing impact of avian and insect consumption of leaves only reduced leaf and shoot production. The stimulatory effect of defoliation in one season carried through the dormant season to the following growing season. Defoliations during the dormant season did not have any positive or negative impact on plants relative to non‐defoliated plants. Leaf and shoot material removed when the plants were growing, was replaced within weeks of defoliation.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Goat defoliation during growth stimulated acacia leaf and shoot growth relative to non-defoliated plants.
- Taxon
- acacia karroo haynet0
- Treatment
- Defoliation by goats (leaves plus shoots)e0
- Interactor
- goats
Capra hircuse0herbivore - Outcome
- leaf and shoot growthe0
- Direction
- stimulatione0
- Comparator
- non‐defoliated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation by goats (leaves plus shoots) during the growing phenophases resulted in a considerable stimulation of leaf and shoot growth relative to non‐defoliated plants”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Acacia response differed by defoliation intensity and phenophase.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“The response differed considerably depending on the intensity and phenophase of defoliation”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Acacia was most susceptible to defoliation and young shoot removal during the spring flush.
Verbatim
e0“Plants were most susceptible to defoliation and young shoot removal during the spring flush when carbohydrate levels were at their lowest”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Acacia carbohydrate levels were high during the rest of the growing season.
Verbatim
e0“During the rest of the growing season carbohydrate levels were high”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate to heavy defoliation yielded greatest acacia leaf and shoot growth outside spring flush.
- Taxon
- acacia karroo haynet0
- Treatment
- moderate to heavy (50 % to 75 % leaf removal) defoliationse0
- Outcome
- leaf and shoot growthe0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Qualifier
- At these timese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“At these times moderate to heavy (50 % to 75 % leaf removal) defoliations resulted in the greatest leaf and shoot growth”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Avian leaf consumption reduced acacia leaf and shoot production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the initial and continuing impact of avian and insect consumption of leaves only reduced leaf and shoot production”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Insect leaf consumption reduced acacia leaf and shoot production.
- Taxon
- acacia karroo haynet0
- Treatment
- insect consumption of leavese0
- Interactor
- insecte0herbivore
- Outcome
- leaf and shoot productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the initial and continuing impact of avian and insect consumption of leaves only reduced leaf and shoot production”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
The positive effect of growing-season defoliation persisted into the next growing season.
Verbatim
e0“The stimulatory effect of defoliation in one season carried through the dormant season to the following growing season”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Dormant-season defoliation had no effect relative to non-defoliated acacia.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliations during the dormant season did not have any positive or negative impact on plants relative to non‐defoliated plants”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
Claim · model-written summary
Acacia replaced removed leaf and shoot material within weeks during growth.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf and shoot material removed when the plants were growing, was replaced within weeks of defoliation”
t0“acacia karroo hayne”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · Capra hircus · Vachellia karrooResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.