Abstract
This study was carried out to determine the effects of pruning on the yield, fruit quality and phenological aspects of three year-old trees of the Precoce de Tyrinthe apricot cultivar grown in Mut-Mersin. In the first experimental year, unpruned trees were found to be more productive; however, these trees gave lower yields (6.5 kg/tree) in the second year due to alternate bearing. August+winter (12.0 kg/tree), July+winter (10.4 kg/tree), and September+winter (10.1 kg/tree) pruning applications were more productive than control trees (6.50 kg/tree). The fruit size of the control trees was 34.05 g, while September+winter (45.66 g), August+winter (44.70 g), and winter (43.67 g) pruning applications gave better results. In 1996, the fruit weight was determined as 33.78 g in control trees, 50.41 g in August+winter, 45.96 g in September+winter, 42.01 g in July+winter pruned trees. Winter pruning was found to be more effective in terms of total soluble solid content than the other treatments. As a result, yield and quality were positively affected by a regular summer+winter pruning in the Precoce de Tyrinthe apricot cultivar.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Unpruned trees were more productive in year one.
- Taxon
- apricot
Prunus armeniacat0 - Treatment
- unprunede0
- Outcome
- more productivee0
- Direction
- more productivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first experimental year, unpruned trees were found to be more productive”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
Unpruned trees yielded 6.5 kg/tree in year two.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 6.5 kg/treee0
- Qualifier
- second yeare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these trees gave lower yields (6.5 kg/tree) in the second year due to alternate bearing”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
August+winter pruning yielded 12.0 kg/tree, above control.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- August+wintere0
- Outcome
- more productivee0
- Direction
- more productivee0
- Value
- 12.0 kg/treee0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“August+winter (12.0 kg/tree), July+winter (10.4 kg/tree), and September+winter (10.1 kg/tree) pruning applications were more productive than control trees (6.50 kg/tree)”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
July+winter pruning yielded 10.4 kg/tree, above control.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- July+wintere0
- Outcome
- more productivee0
- Direction
- more productivee0
- Value
- 10.4 kg/treee0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“July+winter (10.4 kg/tree), and September+winter (10.1 kg/tree) pruning applications were more productive than control trees (6.50 kg/tree)”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
September+winter pruning yielded 10.1 kg/tree, above control.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- September+wintere0
- Outcome
- more productivee0
- Direction
- more productivee0
- Value
- 10.1 kg/treee0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“September+winter (10.1 kg/tree) pruning applications were more productive than control trees (6.50 kg/tree)”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
September+winter pruning gave 45.66 g fruit versus 34.05 g control.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- September+wintere0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 45.66 ge0
- Comparator
- control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fruit size of the control trees was 34.05 g, while September+winter (45.66 g), August+winter (44.70 g), and winter (43.67 g) pruning applications gave better results”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
August+winter pruning gave 44.70 g fruit.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- August+wintere0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee1
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 44.70 ge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“August+winter (44.70 g), and winter (43.67 g) pruning applications gave better results”
e1“The fruit size of the control trees was 34.05 g, while September+winter (45.66 g), August+winter (44.70 g), and winter (43.67 g) pruning applications gave better results”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter pruning gave 43.67 g fruit.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“winter (43.67 g) pruning applications gave better results”
e1“The fruit size of the control trees was 34.05 g, while September+winter (45.66 g), August+winter (44.70 g), and winter (43.67 g) pruning applications gave better results”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996, August+winter pruning gave 50.41 g fruit.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- August+wintere0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte1
- Value
- 50.41 ge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“50.41 g in August+winter”
e1“the fruit weight was determined as 33.78 g in control trees”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996, September+winter pruning gave 45.96 g fruit.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- September+wintere0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte1
- Value
- 45.96 ge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“45.96 g in September+winter”
e1“the fruit weight was determined as 33.78 g in control trees”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996, July+winter pruning gave 42.01 g fruit.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- July+wintere0
- Outcome
- fruit weighte1
- Value
- 42.01 ge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“42.01 g in July+winter pruned trees”
e1“the fruit weight was determined as 33.78 g in control trees”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter pruning was more effective for soluble solids than other treatments.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacat0
- Treatment
- Winter pruninge0
- Outcome
- total soluble solid contente0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Winter pruning was found to be more effective in terms of total soluble solid content than the other treatments”
t0“Apricot”
Claim · model-written summary
Regular summer+winter pruning positively affected yield and quality.
- Taxon
- apricotPrunus armeniacae0
- Material
- Precoce de Tyrinthee0
- Treatment
- regular summer+winter pruninge0
- Outcome
- yield and qualitye0
- Direction
- positively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield and quality were positively affected by a regular summer+winter pruning in the Precoce de Tyrinthe apricot cultivar”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · Prunus armeniaca (apricot)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
pruning · molecular: metabolites · Prunus armeniaca (apricot)Results 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.