Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of pre-plant treatments: deep ripping (DR), fumigation (F), deep ripping plus fumigation (DRF), deep ripping plus hog manure compost (DRC), and deep ripping plus fumigation plus hog manure compost (DRFC) in comparison with a non-treated control (NTC) on shoot and root performance of ‘Honeycrisp’ apple trees on M.4 rootstocks in an old orchard site with apple replant disease (ARD). Cylindrocarpon spp., Pythium spp., and Pratylenchus penetrans Cobb, all potential agents of ARD, were present in the orchard soil. Fine-root numbers (1 to 2.9 mm diameter) were significantly greater in the DRC and DRFC treatments than the DR treatment. After 6 years, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) and yield were largest for the DRFC treatment followed closely by F. The DR treatment had no effect on TCSA, yield, or yield efficiency when applied alone compared with the NTC. Contrast analysis demonstrated that F was significantly better than non-F for yield in all years and TCSA and yield efficiency in 2007. Also, there was a significant interaction between DR and F treatment in 2005 that significantly reduced yield in the DRF treatment. Contrast analysis showed that compost had a significant positive effect on yield in all three production years and TCSA and yield efficiency in 2007. Yield efficiency in the third production year was largest for F, DRC, and the DRFC treatments. Nutrient analysis revealed that soil phosphorus concentrations in compost-treated plots were double those in other treatments. High phosphorus content of compost may have contributed to the amelioration of ARD symptoms. This study found that in 2007, soil fumigation alone, as conventionally used for ARD control, and composted hog manure were equally effective in increasing yield and yield efficiency of apple trees planted in an ARD soil. The DRFC treatment was the overall best treatment in all years.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Potential replant disease agents were present in orchard soil.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Interactor
- Cylindrocarpon spp.Cylindrocarpone0pathogen
- Outcome
- present in the orchard soile0
- Qualifier
- Pratylenchus penetrans Cobbe0
.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
PythiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Cylindrocarpon spp., Pythium spp., and Pratylenchus penetrans Cobb, all potential agents of ARD, were present in the orchard soil”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
DRC and DRFC produced significantly more fine roots than DR.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- DRC and DRFC treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Fine-root numberse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- 1 to 2.9 mm diametere0
- Comparator
- DR treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fine-root numbers (1 to 2.9 mm diameter) were significantly greater in the DRC and DRFC treatments than the DR treatment”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
After six years DRFC gave the largest trunk cross-sectional area, closely followed by fumigation.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- DRFC treatmente0
- Outcome
- trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA)e0
- Direction
- largeste0
- Qualifier
- After 6 yearse0
- Comparator
- Fe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After 6 years, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) and yield were largest for the DRFC treatment followed closely by F”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
After six years DRFC gave the largest yield, closely followed by fumigation.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- DRFC treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- largeste0
- Qualifier
- After 6 yearse0
- Comparator
- Fe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After 6 years, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) and yield were largest for the DRFC treatment followed closely by F”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep ripping alone had no effect on trunk area, yield, or yield efficiency compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- DR treatmente0
- Outcome
- TCSA, yield, or yield efficiencye0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- NTCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The DR treatment had no effect on TCSA, yield, or yield efficiency when applied alone compared with the NTC”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fumigation significantly improved yield in all years relative to no fumigation.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Fe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- all yearse0
- Comparator
- non-Fe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F was significantly better than non-F for yield in all years”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fumigation significantly improved trunk area and yield efficiency in 2007.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Fe0
- Outcome
- TCSA and yield efficiencye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- in 2007e0
- Comparator
- non-Fe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F was significantly better than non-F for yield in all years and TCSA and yield efficiency in 2007”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Deep ripping and fumigation interacted to significantly reduce yield in DRF in 2005.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- DRF treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- in 2005e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant interaction between DR and F treatment in 2005 that significantly reduced yield in the DRF treatment”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost significantly increased yield in all three production years.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- composte0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- positive effecte0
- Qualifier
- all three production yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compost had a significant positive effect on yield in all three production years”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost significantly improved trunk area and yield efficiency in 2007.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- composte0
- Outcome
- TCSA and yield efficiencye0
- Direction
- positive effecte0
- Qualifier
- in 2007e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compost had a significant positive effect on yield in all three production years and TCSA and yield efficiency in 2007”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Third-year yield efficiency was largest with F, DRC and DRFC.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- F, DRC, and the DRFC treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Yield efficiencye0
- Direction
- largeste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield efficiency in the third production year was largest for F, DRC, and the DRFC treatments”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil phosphorus in compost plots was double that in other treatments.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- compost-treated plotse0
- Outcome
- soil phosphorus concentrationse0
- Direction
- doublee0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil phosphorus concentrations in compost-treated plots were double those in other treatments”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
High compost phosphorus may have helped alleviate apple replant disease symptoms.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Compound
- phosphoruse0
- Outcome
- amelioration of ARD symptomse0
- Qualifier
- may have contributede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High phosphorus content of compost may have contributed to the amelioration of ARD symptoms”
t0“Apple Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fumigation alone and composted hog manure were equally effective at increasing apple yield and yield efficiency in 2007.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- soil fumigation alonee0
- Outcome
- yield and yield efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Qualifier
- in 2007e0
- Comparator
- composted hog manuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in 2007, soil fumigation alone, as conventionally used for ARD control, and composted hog manure were equally effective in increasing yield and yield efficiency of apple trees planted in an ARD soil”
Claim · model-written summary
DRFC was the overall best treatment in every year.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- DRFC treatmente0
- Outcome
- overall best treatmente0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The DRFC treatment was the overall best treatment in all years”
t0“Apple Trees”
The same questions in other papers
solarization · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →fertilization · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
149 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
174 papers more in this group
See all 178 papers →solarization · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- 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.