Abstract
SummaryContact and residual herbicide, polypropylene woven (plastic) and straw mulches were compared as ground vegetation management systems in a newly planted Bramley/M.9 apple orchard at HRI-East Malling, UK over an eight year period. The effects of these treatments on weed control, soil quality, tree nutrition, tree growth, crop yield and fruit quality were measured. Contact herbicide gave the poorest weed control, followed by residual herbicide.Very little weed intrusion occurred in the plastic and straw mulch treatments. The concentrations of soil biomass C, biomass N and respiration rates were consistently greatest under the straw mulch and contact herbicide, suggesting that C and N was incorporated into the soil biomass most efficiently under these treatments. Soil solution nitrate concentrations also were lowest under straw mulch and contact herbicide. The straw mulch increased the concentration of K in the surface soil (0–15 cm) compared with the other treatments, and this was reflected by consistently higher concentrations in the leaves of trees. The contact herbicide treatment had lower leaf concentrations of N in most years. Fruit mineral concentrations reflected leaf mineral concentrations. Trees growing in the straw mulch had the greatest shoot growth and those in the contact herbicide treated soil had the least. These increases are ascribed to the greater conservation of moisture within the profile during the shoot extension period. Differences in harvest yield between treatments were generally small in individual years, however cumulative differences occurred over six crops. Trees in the straw mulch had the greatest yields and mean fruit weights. The ground vegetation management systems did not influence fruit quality except in the second harvest, when yields were low and the individual fruit were large.
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
Contact herbicide gave the poorest weed control.
- Taxon
- apple trees
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- Contact herbicidee0
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- pooreste0
- Comparator
- residual herbicidee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Contact herbicide gave the poorest weed control, followed by residual herbicide”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic and straw mulches had very little weed intrusion.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- plastic and straw mulch treatmentse0
- Outcome
- weed intrusione0
- Direction
- Very littlee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Very little weed intrusion occurred in the plastic and straw mulch treatments”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch and contact herbicide had the greatest soil biomass C, biomass N and respiration rates.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- straw mulch and contact herbicidee0
- Outcome
- soil biomass C, biomass N and respiration ratese0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The concentrations of soil biomass C, biomass N and respiration rates were consistently greatest under the straw mulch and contact herbicide”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil solution nitrate was lowest under straw mulch and contact herbicide.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- straw mulch and contact herbicidee0
- Outcome
- Soil solution nitrate concentrationse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil solution nitrate concentrations also were lowest under straw mulch and contact herbicide”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch increased surface soil K compared with other treatments.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- straw mulche0
- Outcome
- concentration of K in the surface soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 0–15 cme0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The straw mulch increased the concentration of K in the surface soil (0–15 cm) compared with the other treatments”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch consistently increased leaf K concentrations.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- straw mulche1
- Outcome
- concentrations in the leaves of treese0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this was reflected by consistently higher concentrations in the leaves of trees”
e1“The straw mulch increased the concentration of K in the surface soil”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Contact herbicide had lower leaf N in most years.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- contact herbicide treatmente0
- Outcome
- leaf concentrations of Ne0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- in most yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The contact herbicide treatment had lower leaf concentrations of N in most years”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit mineral concentrations reflected leaf mineral concentrations.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- leafe0
- Outcome
- Fruit mineral concentrationse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit mineral concentrations reflected leaf mineral concentrations”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch gave the greatest shoot growth and contact herbicide the least.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- straw mulche0
- Outcome
- shoot growthe0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Comparator
- contact herbicidee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees growing in the straw mulch had the greatest shoot growth and those in the contact herbicide treated soil had the least”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest yield differences between treatments were generally small in individual years.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- harvest yielde0
- Direction
- smalle0
- Qualifier
- in individual yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in harvest yield between treatments were generally small in individual years”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative yield differences occurred across six crops.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- cumulative differencese0
- Qualifier
- over six cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cumulative differences occurred over six crops”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw mulch gave the greatest yields and mean fruit weights.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- straw mulche0
- Outcome
- yields and mean fruit weightse0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees in the straw mulch had the greatest yields and mean fruit weights”
t0“apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground vegetation management generally did not influence fruit quality except at the second harvest.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ground vegetation management systemse0
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
- Qualifier
- except in the second harveste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ground vegetation management systems did not influence fruit quality except in the second harvest, when yields were low and the individual fruit were large”
t0“apple trees”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · weed · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →cultivation system · quality: grain · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
organic · weed · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →organic · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →organic · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
11 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.