Abstract
`Meeker' red raspberry ( Rubus idaeus L.) cane densities of 5, 10, or 15 canes/hill in a hill system, with canes topped at 2 m or the entire cane length retained and looped, were compared with a 15- or 30-cm-wide hedgerow with canes topped at 2 m from 1995 to 1997. Cane density among all treatments ranged from 2.2 to 9.9 canes/m 2 during the study. Plots were harvested by machine every 2 days. Within the hill system, total yield increased with cane density in all years. Looped treatments produced a higher yield/plot than did topped ones in all years except 1996, when the yield difference was insignificant because looped canes had greater winter injury. Weight per fruit ranged from 5.4% to 9.7% less on looped than on topped canes. Hedgerow systems had a lower yield than hill systems in 1996, but a higher yield in 1997. Losses due to machine harvest were not affected by pruning (cane density or topping) or production system (hill system or hedgerow) and averaged 16.2% of total yield in 1997. Thirty-five percent of the loss due to machine harvest occurred between harvests.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
In the hill system, total yield of red raspberry increased with cane density in all years.
- Taxon
- Red Raspberry
_Rubus_idaeus_-_Feuillage.jpg?width=60)
Rubus idaeust0 - Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- cane densitye2
- Outcome
- total yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in all yearse2
- Setting
- hill systeme2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Rubus_idaeus_-_Feuillage.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e2“Within the hill system, total yield increased with cane density in all years”
Claim · model-written summary
Looped treatments produced higher yield per plot than topped ones in all years except 1996.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- Looped treatmentse3
- Outcome
- yield/plote3
- Direction
- highere3
- Qualifier
- in all years except 1996e3
- Comparator
- topped onese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e3“Looped treatments produced a higher yield/plot than did topped ones in all years except 1996, when the yield difference was insignificant because looped canes had greater winter injury”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996, the yield difference between looped and topped canes was not significant.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- Looped treatmentse3
- Outcome
- yield differencee3
- Qualifier
- 1996e3
- Comparator
- topped onese3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e3“Looped treatments produced a higher yield/plot than did topped ones in all years except 1996, when the yield difference was insignificant because looped canes had greater winter injury”
Claim · model-written summary
Looped canes had greater winter injury than topped canes in 1996.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- looped canese3
- Outcome
- winter injurye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e3“Looped treatments produced a higher yield/plot than did topped ones in all years except 1996, when the yield difference was insignificant because looped canes had greater winter injury”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight per fruit was 5.4% to 9.7% lower on looped than on topped canes.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- loopede4
- Outcome
- Weight per fruite4
- Direction
- lesse4
- Value
- 5.4% to 9.7%e4
- Comparator
- topped canese4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e4“Weight per fruit ranged from 5.4% to 9.7% less on looped than on topped canes”
Claim · model-written summary
Hedgerow systems had a lower yield than hill systems in 1996.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- Hedgerow systemse5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Qualifier
- in 1996e5
- Comparator
- hill systemse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e5“Hedgerow systems had a lower yield than hill systems in 1996, but a higher yield in 1997”
Claim · model-written summary
Hedgerow systems had a higher yield than hill systems in 1997.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- Hedgerow systemse5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- highere5
- Qualifier
- in 1997e5
- Comparator
- hill systemse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e5“Hedgerow systems had a lower yield than hill systems in 1996, but a higher yield in 1997”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning did not affect losses due to machine harvest in red raspberry.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- pruninge6
- Outcome
- Losses due to machine harveste6
- Direction
- not affectede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e6“Losses due to machine harvest were not affected by pruning (cane density or topping) or production system (hill system or hedgerow) and averaged 16.2% of total yield in 1997”
Claim · model-written summary
Production system did not affect losses due to machine harvest in red raspberry.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Treatment
- production systeme6
- Outcome
- Losses due to machine harveste6
- Direction
- not affectede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e6“Losses due to machine harvest were not affected by pruning (cane density or topping) or production system (hill system or hedgerow) and averaged 16.2% of total yield in 1997”
Claim · model-written summary
Losses due to machine harvest averaged 16.2% of total yield in 1997.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Outcome
- Losses due to machine harveste6
- Value
- 16.2%e6
- Qualifier
- of total yield in 1997e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e6“Losses due to machine harvest were not affected by pruning (cane density or topping) or production system (hill system or hedgerow) and averaged 16.2% of total yield in 1997”
Claim · model-written summary
Thirty-five percent of the loss due to machine harvest occurred between harvests.
- Taxon
- Red RaspberryRubus idaeust0
- Material
- Meekert0
- Outcome
- loss due to machine harveste7
- Value
- Thirty-five percente7
- Qualifier
- occurred between harvestse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Meeker' Red Raspberry”
e7“Thirty-five percent of the loss due to machine harvest occurred between harvests”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Rubus idaeus (red raspberry)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.