Paper · 2014 · Biological Research

Influence of rootstocks on growth, yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element contents of pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions

Ali Ikinci; Ibrahim Bolat; Sezai Ercisli; et al.

14
claims
28
verbatim quotes
84
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rootstocks play an essential role to determining orchard performance of fruit trees. Pyrus communis and Cydonia oblonga are widely used rootstocks for European pear cultivars. The lack of rootstocks adapted to different soil conditions and different grafted cultivars is widely acknowledged in pear culture. Cydonia rootstocks (clonal) and Pyrus rootstocks (seedling or clonal) have their advantages and disadvantages. In each case, site-specific environmental characteristics, specific cultivar response and production objectives must be considered before choosing the best rootstock. In this study, the influence of three Quince (BA 29, Quince A = MA, Quince C = MC) and a local European pear seedling rootstocks on the scion yield, some fruit quality characteristics and leaf macro (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) and micro element (Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn and B) content of 'Santa Maria' pear (Pyrus communis L.) were investigated. RESULTS: Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield, highest cumulative yield (kg tree(-1)), largest trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), lowest yield efficiency and lowest cumulative yield (ton ha(-1)) in the 10(th) year after planting. The rootstocks had no significant effect on average fruit weight and fruit volume. Significantly higher fruit firmness was obtained on BA 29 and Quince A. The effect of rootstocks on the mineral element accumulation (N, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn and B) was significant. Leaf analysis showed that rootstocks used had different mineral uptake efficiencies throughout the early season. CONCLUSION: The results showed that the rootstocks strongly affected fruit yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element uptake of 'Santa Maria' pear cultivar. Pear seedling and BA 29 rootstock found to be more prominent in terms of several characteristics for 'Santa Maria' pear cultivar that is grown in highly calcareous soil in semi-arid climate conditions. We determined the highest N, P (although insignificant), K, Ca, Mg, Fe and Cu mineral element concentrations on the pear seedling and BA 29 rootstocks. According to the results, we recommend the seedling rootstock for normal density plantings (400 trees ha(-1)) and BA 29 rootstock for high-density plantings (800 trees ha(-1)) for 'Santa Maria' pear cultivar in semi-arid conditions.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield in the 10th year after planting

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
seedling rootstocke0
Outcome
annual yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
10(th) year after plantinge0
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield, highest cumulative yield (kg tree(-1)), largest trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), lowest yield efficiency and lowest cumulative yield (ton ha(-1)) in the 10(th) year after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1176 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest cumulative yield in kg per tree in the 10th year after planting

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
seedling rootstocke0
Outcome
cumulative yield (kg tree(-1))e0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
10(th) year after plantinge0
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield, highest cumulative yield (kg tree(-1)), largest trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), lowest yield efficiency and lowest cumulative yield (ton ha(-1)) in the 10(th) year after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1176 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees on seedling rootstock had the largest trunk cross-sectional area in the 10th year after planting

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
seedling rootstocke0
Outcome
trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA)e0
Direction
largeste0
Qualifier
10(th) year after plantinge0
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield, highest cumulative yield (kg tree(-1)), largest trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), lowest yield efficiency and lowest cumulative yield (ton ha(-1)) in the 10(th) year after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1176 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees on seedling rootstock had the lowest yield efficiency in the 10th year after planting

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
seedling rootstocke0
Outcome
yield efficiencye0
Direction
loweste0
Qualifier
10(th) year after plantinge0
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield, highest cumulative yield (kg tree(-1)), largest trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), lowest yield efficiency and lowest cumulative yield (ton ha(-1)) in the 10(th) year after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1176 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees on seedling rootstock had the lowest cumulative yield in tons per hectare in the 10th year after planting

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
seedling rootstocke0
Outcome
cumulative yield (ton ha(-1))e0
Direction
loweste0
Qualifier
10(th) year after plantinge0
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trees on seedling rootstock had the highest annual yield, highest cumulative yield (kg tree(-1)), largest trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), lowest yield efficiency and lowest cumulative yield (ton ha(-1)) in the 10(th) year after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1176 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rootstocks had no significant effect on average fruit weight or fruit volume

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
rootstockse1
Outcome
average fruit weight and fruit volumee1
Direction
no significant effecte1
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“The rootstocks had no significant effect on average fruit weight and fruit volume. Significantly higher fruit firmness was obtained on BA 29 and Quince A”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1178–1331 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

BA 29 and Quince A rootstocks gave significantly higher fruit firmness in Santa Maria pear

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
BA 29 and Quince Ae1
Outcome
fruit firmnesse1
Direction
highere1
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e1

“The rootstocks had no significant effect on average fruit weight and fruit volume. Significantly higher fruit firmness was obtained on BA 29 and Quince A”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1178–1331 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rootstocks had a significant effect on leaf mineral element accumulation in Santa Maria pear

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
rootstockse2
Outcome
mineral element accumulatione2
Qualifier
N, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn and Be2
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e2

“The effect of rootstocks on the mineral element accumulation (N, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn and B) was significant. Leaf analysis showed that rootstocks used had different mineral uptake efficiencies throughout the early season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1333–1559 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rootstocks differed in mineral uptake efficiency during the early season in Santa Maria pear

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
rootstockse2
Outcome
mineral uptake efficienciese2
Qualifier
throughout the early seasone2
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e2

“The effect of rootstocks on the mineral element accumulation (N, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn and B) was significant. Leaf analysis showed that rootstocks used had different mineral uptake efficiencies throughout the early season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1333–1559 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rootstocks strongly affected fruit yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element uptake of Santa Maria pear

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
rootstockse3
Outcome
fruit yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element uptakee3
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e3

“The results showed that the rootstocks strongly affected fruit yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element uptake of 'Santa Maria' pear cultivar. Pear seedling and BA 29 rootstock found to be more prominent in terms of several characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1573–1817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pear seedling and BA 29 rootstocks were more prominent than the other rootstocks in several characteristics of Santa Maria pear

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
Pear seedling and BA 29 rootstocke3
Outcome
several characteristicse3
Direction
more prominente3
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e3

“The results showed that the rootstocks strongly affected fruit yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element uptake of 'Santa Maria' pear cultivar. Pear seedling and BA 29 rootstock found to be more prominent in terms of several characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1573–1817 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pear seedling and BA 29 rootstocks had the highest concentrations of several mineral elements in Santa Maria pear

Material
Santa Mariat0
Treatment
pear seedling and BA 29 rootstockse4
Outcome
mineral element concentrationse4
Direction
higheste4
Qualifier
N, P (although insignificant), K, Ca, Mg, Fe and Cue4
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e4

“We determined the highest N, P (although insignificant), K, Ca, Mg, Fe and Cu mineral element concentrations on the pear seedling and BA 29 rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1923–2073 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Seedling rootstock is recommended for normal density plantings of Santa Maria pear (400 trees per hectare)

Material
Santa Mariat0
Outcome
seedling rootstock for normal density plantingse5
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e5

“we recommend the seedling rootstock for normal density plantings (400 trees ha(-1)) and BA 29 rootstock for high-density plantings (800 trees ha(-1))”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2101–2250 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

BA 29 rootstock is recommended for high-density plantings of Santa Maria pear (800 trees per hectare)

Material
Santa Mariat0
Outcome
BA 29 rootstock for high-density plantingse5
Setting
semi-arid conditionst0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 93–139 · show in text ↑
e5

“we recommend the seedling rootstock for normal density plantings (400 trees ha(-1)) and BA 29 rootstock for high-density plantings (800 trees ha(-1))”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2101–2250 · show in text ↑

N-benzyladenine · quality: postharvest · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

grafting · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 7 positive, 5 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 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.