Paper · 2006 · Organic Eprints (International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture)

Successful control of apple scab with hydrated lime.

P. Grimm-Wetzel; Jörg Schönherr

16
claims
37
verbatim quotes
0
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In an attempt to control scab, a 12-year-old apple orchard was treated with suspensions of 5 g/l hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) using overhead irrigation for 15 min. No other fungicides were used. In treatment A, irrigation was started when infection according to Mills had taken place. In treatments B and C, treatment was delayed by 6 h and 20 h, respectively. Irrigation was initiated when the scab warning system signaled even very low infection risk, and a total of 62 treatments were applied. At harvest, the fruits of ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Jonagold’ varieties of untreated controls were scabbed, while those of ‘Elstar’, ‘Fiesta’, and ‘Kent’ had no visible scab symptoms. During both conventional and ULO storage for 7.5 months, all control fruits developed scab symptoms. All fruits from A, B, and C treatments were free of scab at harvest and after storage. All control trees had scabbed leaves at harvest time; treated trees were free of scab on their upper leaf surfaces, while up to 15% of the leaves had at least one scab lesion on their lower surfaces. This was attributed to poor wetting of these surfaces by sprinkler irrigation, while the fruits and upper leaf surfaces were fully covered with hydrated lime suspensions. At harvest, leaves and fruits were covered with whitish calcium carbonate residues which could be removed by a brief dip in 20 g/l aqueous citric acid. There were no signs of phytotoxicity on either leaves or fruits.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.

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 16

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated Golden Delicious fruit had scab at harvest.

Material
‘Golden Delicious’e0
Organ / stage
fruitse0
Treatment
untreated controlse0
Outcome
fruitse0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“At harvest, the fruits of ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Jonagold’ varieties of untreated controls were scabbed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–596 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated Jonagold fruit had scab at harvest.

Material
‘Jonagold’e0
Organ / stage
fruitse0
Outcome
were scabbede0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“At harvest, the fruits of ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Jonagold’ varieties of untreated controls were scabbed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–596 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated Elstar fruit had no visible scab at harvest.

Material
‘Elstar’e0
Outcome
no visible scab symptomse0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“those of ‘Elstar’, ‘Fiesta’, and ‘Kent’ had no visible scab symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–673 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated Fiesta fruit had no visible scab at harvest.

Material
‘Fiesta’e0
Outcome
no visible scab symptomse0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“those of ‘Elstar’, ‘Fiesta’, and ‘Kent’ had no visible scab symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–673 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated Kent fruit had no visible scab at harvest.

Material
‘Kent’e0
Outcome
no visible scab symptomse0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“those of ‘Elstar’, ‘Fiesta’, and ‘Kent’ had no visible scab symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–673 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All untreated fruit developed scab during conventional and ULO storage for 7.5 months.

Organ / stage
fruitse0
Outcome
developed scab symptomse0
Qualifier
7.5 monthse0
Setting
conventional and ULO storagee0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“During both conventional and ULO storage for 7.5 months, all control fruits developed scab symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–774 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit from treatment A was free of scab at harvest and after storage.

Treatment
treatment Ae1
Outcome
free of scab at harvest and after storagee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“All fruits from A, B, and C treatments were free of scab at harvest and after storage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–861 · show in text ↑
e1

“In treatment A, irrigation was started when infection according to Mills had taken place.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 190–279 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit from treatment B was free of scab at harvest and after storage.

Treatment
treatments Be1
Outcome
free of scab at harvest and after storagee0
Qualifier
6 he1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“All fruits from A, B, and C treatments were free of scab at harvest and after storage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–861 · show in text ↑
e1

“In treatments B and C, treatment was delayed by 6 h and 20 h, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 280–355 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit from treatment C was free of scab at harvest and after storage.

Treatment
treatments B and Ce1
Outcome
free of scab at harvest and after storagee0
Qualifier
20 he1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“All fruits from A, B, and C treatments were free of scab at harvest and after storage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–861 · show in text ↑
e1

“In treatments B and C, treatment was delayed by 6 h and 20 h, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 280–355 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All control trees had scabbed leaves at harvest.

Organ / stage
leavese0
Outcome
scabbed leavese0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“All control trees had scabbed leaves at harvest time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–914 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated trees had no scab on upper leaf surfaces at harvest.

Organ / stage
upper leaf surfacese0
Treatment
suspensions of 5 g/l hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2)e1
Outcome
free of scab on their upper leaf surfacese0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“treated trees were free of scab on their upper leaf surfaces”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 916–976 · show in text ↑
e1

“treated with suspensions of 5 g/l hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) using overhead irrigation for 15 min.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 63–158 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Up to 15% of treated leaves had at least one scab lesion on lower surfaces.

Organ / stage
lower surfacese0
Outcome
leaves had at least one scab lesion on their lower surfacese0
Value
up to 15%e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“up to 15% of the leaves had at least one scab lesion on their lower surfaces”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 984–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attributed lower leaf scab to poor wetting by sprinkler irrigation.

Outcome
at least one scab lesion on their lower surfacese1
Qualifier
poor wetting of these surfaces by sprinkler irrigatione0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“This was attributed to poor wetting of these surfaces by sprinkler irrigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1062–1139 · show in text ↑
e1

“up to 15% of the leaves had at least one scab lesion on their lower surfaces”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 984–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hydrated lime fully covered fruit and upper leaf surfaces.

Organ / stage
fruits and upper leaf surfacese0
Outcome
fully covered with hydrated lime suspensionse0

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 fruits and upper leaf surfaces were fully covered with hydrated lime suspensions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1147–1232 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaves and fruit had whitish calcium carbonate residue at harvest, removable by a brief citric acid dip.

Organ / stage
leaves and fruitse0
Treatment
20 g/l aqueous citric acide0
Outcome
whitish calcium carbonate residuese0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“At harvest, leaves and fruits were covered with whitish calcium carbonate residues which could be removed by a brief dip in 20 g/l aqueous citric acid.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1384 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hydrated lime treatment showed no phytotoxicity on leaves or fruit.

Organ / stage
leaves or fruitse0
Outcome
no signs of phytotoxicitye0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“There were no signs of phytotoxicity on either leaves or fruits.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1385–1449 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 22–27 · show in text ↑

calcium dihydroxide · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
See all 2 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.