Paper · 1990 · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Thinning of Spur `Delicious' Apples by Shade, Terbacil, Carbaryl, and Ethephon

R.E. Byers; J.A. Barden; D.H. Carbaugh

9
claims
16
verbatim quotes
50
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Terbacil applied to whole-spur `Delicious' apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) trees reduced photosynthesis and fruit set. The addition of the surfactant X-77 to terbacil sprays increased fruit thinning and leaf injury. Terbacil sprays applied to leaves only (fruit covered with foil) were as effective as when applied to leaves plus fruit. Dipping fruit alone in a terbacil solution did not cause abscission. Shading trees for 4 days with 92% polypropylene shade material reduced fruit set =50%. Spraying trees with carbaryl reduced fruit set by 25%. The combination of shade + carbaryl spraying reduced fruit set by 89%. Chemical names used: l-naphthalenyl methylcarbamate (carbaryl); 3-tert- butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil (terbacil); 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid (ethephon); alkaryl polyoxyethylene alcohols (X-77).

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 resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Terbacil reduced photosynthesis in Delicious apple trees.

Material
`Delicious'e0
Treatment
Terbacile0
Outcome
photosynthesise0
Direction
reducede0

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

“Terbacil applied to whole-spur `Delicious' apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) trees reduced photosynthesis and fruit set”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Terbacil reduced fruit set in Delicious apple trees.

Treatment
Terbacile0
Outcome
fruit sete0
Direction
reducede0

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

“Terbacil applied to whole-spur `Delicious' apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) trees reduced photosynthesis and fruit set”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding X-77 to terbacil increased fruit thinning.

Treatment
addition of the surfactant X-77 to terbacil sprayse0
Outcome
fruit thinninge0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
terbacil sprayse0

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 addition of the surfactant X-77 to terbacil sprays increased fruit thinning and leaf injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 118–213 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding X-77 to terbacil increased leaf injury.

Treatment
addition of the surfactant X-77 to terbacil sprayse0
Outcome
leaf injurye0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
terbacil sprayse0

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 addition of the surfactant X-77 to terbacil sprays increased fruit thinning and leaf injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 118–213 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf-only terbacil was as effective as leaf-plus-fruit application.

Treatment
Terbacil sprays applied to leaves onlye0
Outcome
as effectivee0
Direction
as effectivee0
Comparator
applied to leaves plus fruite0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Terbacil sprays applied to leaves only (fruit covered with foil) were as effective as when applied to leaves plus fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 215–334 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dipping fruit alone in terbacil did not cause abscission.

Treatment
Dipping fruit alone in a terbacil solutione0
Outcome
abscissione0
Direction
did not causee0

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

“Dipping fruit alone in a terbacil solution did not cause abscission”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 336–403 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four days of 92% shade reduced fruit set by about 50%.

Treatment
Shading trees for 4 days with 92% polypropylene shade materiale0
Outcome
fruit sete0
Direction
reducede0
Value
50%e0

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

“Shading trees for 4 days with 92% polypropylene shade material reduced fruit set =50%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–490 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbaryl spraying reduced fruit set by 25%.

Treatment
Spraying trees with carbaryle0
Outcome
fruit sete0
Direction
reducede0
Value
25%e0

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

“Spraying trees with carbaryl reduced fruit set by 25%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–545 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shade plus carbaryl reduced fruit set by 89%.

Treatment
shade + carbaryl sprayinge0
Outcome
fruit sete0
Direction
reducede0
Value
89%e0

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

“The combination of shade + carbaryl spraying reduced fruit set by 89%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 547–616 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–35 · show in text ↑

carbaryl · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

42 papers: 32 positive, 10 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 papers →

surfactant · crop injury · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

poly(propylene) · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Terbacil · physiology: photosynthesis · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

Terbacil · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 2 positive, 5 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

shade · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 9 positive, 6 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
    Full shade reduced apple yield most, followed by morning and afternoon partial shade.

    Shade effects on growth, flowering and fruit of apple · 2015 · compared with partial shade treatments, MS and AS

    Opposite directionCites this paper

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

application · crop injury · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 7 positive, 18 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

application · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

141 papers: 107 positive, 34 negative or no effect

106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

137 papers more in this group

See all 141 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.