Abstract
Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees were treated to evaluate the response of root pruned trees to chemical thinning and to determine if reducing the crop load increased fruit size on root pruned trees. The trees were root pruned at full bloom in 1988 and 1989, by cutting on both sides of the row 1m from the trunk and 30cm deep. Water, 600mg/liter carbaryl, 5mg/liter napthaleneacetic acid (NAA), or NAA plus carbaryl were applied when fruit diameter was approximately 10mm. Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) was increased by thinning treatments in 1988, but root pruning had no effect. In 1989, root pruning reduced TCSA increment by 35%. Shoot length was reduced by root pruning both years. All treatments reduced percent fruit set in 1989, however root pruned trees and trees treated with NAA had the highest fruit numbers at harvest. Preharvest fruit drop was reduced by root pruning in both 1988 and 1989. Root pruning had no influence on the response of apple trees to chemical thinning. Removing a portion of the crop with chemical thinners was partially successful in counteracting the reduction in fruit size caused by root pruning.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical thinning increased trunk cross sectional area in 1988.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- thinning treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- 1988e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) was increased by thinning treatments in 1988, but root pruning had no effect.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning did not affect trunk cross sectional area in 1988.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- root pruninge0
- Outcome
- Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA)e0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Qualifier
- 1988e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) was increased by thinning treatments in 1988, but root pruning had no effect.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning reduced trunk cross sectional area increment by 35% in 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- root pruninge0
- Outcome
- TCSA incremente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Qualifier
- 1989e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“In 1989, root pruning reduced TCSA increment by 35%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning reduced shoot length in both years.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- root pruninge0
- Outcome
- Shoot lengthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“Shoot length was reduced by root pruning both years.”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments reduced fruit set percentage in 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- percent fruit sete0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 1989e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“All treatments reduced percent fruit set in 1989”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruned trees had among the highest fruit numbers at harvest.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- root prunede0
- Outcome
- fruit numbers at harveste0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“root pruned trees and trees treated with NAA had the highest fruit numbers at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA treated trees had among the highest fruit numbers at harvest.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- NAAe0
- Outcome
- fruit numbers at harveste0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“root pruned trees and trees treated with NAA had the highest fruit numbers at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning reduced preharvest fruit drop in 1988 and 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- root pruninge0
- Outcome
- Preharvest fruit drope0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- both 1988 and 1989e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“Preharvest fruit drop was reduced by root pruning in both 1988 and 1989.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning had no influence on chemical thinning response.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- Root pruninge0
- Outcome
- response of apple trees to chemical thinninge0
- Direction
- no influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“Root pruning had no influence on the response of apple trees to chemical thinning.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical thinners partially counteracted the fruit size reduction caused by root pruning.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- `McIntosh'/MM.111e1
- Treatment
- chemical thinnerse0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- counteractinge0
- Qualifier
- partially successfule0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE TREES”
e1“Mature `McIntosh'/MM.111 apple (Malus domestica, Borkh.) trees”
e0“Removing a portion of the crop with chemical thinners was partially successful in counteracting the reduction in fruit size caused by root pruning.”
The same questions in other papers
1-naphthaleneacetic acid · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →pruning · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →pruning · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
102 papers more in this group
See all 106 papers →pruning · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
99 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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.