Paper · 1998 · Indian Journal of Horticulture

Effect of pruning intensity on vegetative and reproductive growth in ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)

Renu Pandey; R.A. Pathak; I. Singh

9
claims
19
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The studies conducted on pruning intensity on vegetative and reproductive growth in ber indicated that cultivars varied insignificantly regarding production and growth of primary, secondary and tertiary branches. The maximum production of primary branches was under 25% pruning, whereas 50% pruning produced more number of secondary and tertiary branches. The length of primary branches were highest under the control, secondary branches under 25%, whereas length of tertiary branches were highest under 50% pruning severity. Number of flower clusters, fruit set and fruit retention were highest under 50% intensity in all the cultivars. Ber Umran had highest fruit yield followed by Banarasi Karaka and Gola. Maximum fruit yield was with 50% pruning severity followed by 75% in all the cultivars.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivars did not differ significantly in primary, secondary, and tertiary branch production and growth.

Outcome
production and growth of primary, secondary and tertiary branchese0
Direction
varied insignificantlye0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cultivars varied insignificantly regarding production and growth of primary, secondary and tertiary branches”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 103–211 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Primary branch production was greatest under 25% pruning.

Treatment
25% pruninge0
Outcome
production of primary branchese0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The maximum production of primary branches was under 25% pruning”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–277 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary and tertiary branch numbers were greater under 50% pruning.

Treatment
50% pruninge0
Outcome
number of secondary and tertiary branchese0
Direction
moree0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“50% pruning produced more number of secondary and tertiary branches”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 287–354 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Primary branches were longest in the control.

Treatment
controle0
Outcome
length of primary branchese0
Direction
higheste0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The length of primary branches were highest under the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 356–417 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Secondary branches were longest under 25% pruning.

Treatment
25%e0
Outcome
secondary branchese0
Direction
higheste1

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“secondary branches under 25%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–447 · show in text ↑
e1

“The length of primary branches were highest under the control, secondary branches under 25%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 356–447 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tertiary branches were longest under 50% pruning.

Treatment
50% pruning severitye0
Outcome
length of tertiary branchese0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“length of tertiary branches were highest under 50% pruning severity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 457–524 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flower clusters, fruit set, and fruit retention were highest at 50% pruning intensity.

Treatment
50% intensitye0
Outcome
Number of flower clusters, fruit set and fruit retentione0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Number of flower clusters, fruit set and fruit retention were highest under 50% intensity in all the cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 526–636 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ber Umran had the highest fruit yield, followed by Banarasi Karaka and Gola.

Material
Ber Umrane0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
Banarasi Karaka and Golae0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Ber Umran had highest fruit yield followed by Banarasi Karaka and Gola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–708 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit yield was greatest with 50% pruning, followed by 75%.

Treatment
50% pruning severitye0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
Maximume0
Comparator
75%e0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum fruit yield was with 50% pruning severity followed by 75% in all the cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 710–796 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–94 · show in text ↑

pruning · yield · Ziziphus mauritiana (ber)Results agree

13 papers: 13 positive, 0 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.