Abstract
SummaryThe effects of reduced photosynthate supply on apple fruit retention was investigated during the fruit setting period in two years with mature ‘Jonagold’/M.9 apple trees. Shading (90%, 7–12 d after petal fall, DAPF) caused fruitlet drop by 23 DAPF and strongly reduced the yield. Carbaryl did not enhance the abscission caused by shading. The photosynthesis inhibitor terbacil resulted in significant abscission, primarily during June drop. Two days after the beginning of shading and one day after terbacil treatment fruitlets net assimilation of CO2 was reduced (i.e. CO2 loss was greater compared with controls). Further, at the end of the shading or 8 d after terbacil application, fruitlet size was smaller. These smaller fruitlets had a diminished CO2 exchange and were more prone to abscission. Fruitlets in competition, king fruitlets in competition with laterals and lateral fruitlets in competition with kings and other laterals, abscised more than comparable fruitlets without competition in the cluster.
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
Shading caused apple fruitlet drop by 23 days after petal fall.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- Shading (90%, 7–12 d after petal fall, DAPF)e0
- Outcome
- fruitlet drope0
- Value
- 23 DAPFe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading (90%, 7–12 d after petal fall, DAPF) caused fruitlet drop by 23 DAPF”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading strongly reduced apple yield.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Shading (90%, 7–12 d after petal fall, DAPF)e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shading (90%, 7–12 d after petal fall, DAPF) caused fruitlet drop by 23 DAPF and strongly reduced the yield”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbaryl did not enhance shading-induced abscission.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Carbaryle0
- Outcome
- abscissione0
- Direction
- did not enhancee0
- Comparator
- shadinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbaryl did not enhance the abscission caused by shading”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Terbacil caused significant apple fruitlet abscission, mainly during June drop.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- terbacile0
- Outcome
- abscissione0
- Qualifier
- primarily during June drope0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The photosynthesis inhibitor terbacil resulted in significant abscission, primarily during June drop”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced fruitlet net CO2 assimilation two days after treatment began.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- fruitlets net assimilation of CO2e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- Two days after the beginning of shadinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two days after the beginning of shading and one day after terbacil treatment fruitlets net assimilation of CO2 was reduced”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Terbacil reduced fruitlet net CO2 assimilation one day after application.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- terbacile0
- Outcome
- fruitlets net assimilation of CO2e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- one day after terbacil treatmente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two days after the beginning of shading and one day after terbacil treatment fruitlets net assimilation of CO2 was reduced”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading made apple fruitlets smaller by the end of treatment.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- fruitlet sizee0
- Direction
- smallere0
- Qualifier
- at the end of the shadinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at the end of the shading or 8 d after terbacil application, fruitlet size was smaller”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Terbacil made apple fruitlets smaller eight days after application.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- terbacile0
- Outcome
- fruitlet sizee0
- Direction
- smallere0
- Qualifier
- 8 d after terbacil applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at the end of the shading or 8 d after terbacil application, fruitlet size was smaller”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Smaller fruitlets had diminished CO2 exchange.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- smaller fruitletse0
- Outcome
- CO2 exchangee0
- Direction
- diminishede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These smaller fruitlets had a diminished CO2 exchange and were more prone to abscission”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Smaller fruitlets were more prone to abscission.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- smaller fruitletse0
- Outcome
- abscissione0
- Direction
- more pronee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These smaller fruitlets had a diminished CO2 exchange and were more prone to abscission”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Competing fruitlets abscised more than fruitlets without within-cluster competition.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- Fruitletse0
- Outcome
- abscisede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- comparable fruitlets without competition in the clustere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruitlets in competition, king fruitlets in competition with laterals and lateral fruitlets in competition with kings and other laterals, abscised more than comparable fruitlets without competition in the cluster”
t0“Apple”
The same questions in other papers
carbaryl · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →Terbacil · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Terbacil · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →shade · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →shade · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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.