Abstract
SummaryThe effects of M.9 and MM.106 rootstocks and in-row spacing (0.4, 0.7, and 1 m) on the vegetative behaviour of three-year-old apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees were studied. Analysis of digital images was used to estimate canopy and root growth and conformation (shape and size), whereas dry-matter distribution was used to determine partitioning to various plant parts. Trees on less vigorous M.9 rootstocks showed reduced stem and root growth as they produced fewer and/or shorter shoots and fewer and/or shorter and thinner roots. Canopy spread area (CSA) and volume were similar for trees on both rootstocks and differences in stem length density (stem length per unit canopy volume; SLD) compensated for the difference in stem growth. For M.9 roots, the decrease in growth was reflected in the reduction in root spread area (RSA), which was not compensated for by the increase in root length density (root length per unit RSA; RLD). Trees on M.9 allocated more dry matter to above-ground structures, whereas trees on MM.106 partitioned more to roots. Leaf to root surface area ratio (L:R) was also greater for trees on M.9. Stems of trees grown 0.4.m apart weighed less because they were thinner, whereas the same trees produced fewer and/or shorter, but thicker roots, which resulted in similar root dry weights for trees at all spacings. Canopy height increased with spacing for trees on M.9, whereas it was negatively related to spacing for MM.106. CSA was rounder at the wider spacings and exceeded the allotted soil surface at the closest one. For three year old apple trees, optimum in-row spacing (no shoot overlap and full coverage of allotted space) was about 0.7.m for M.9 and 0.8.m for MM.106. RSA was also rounder at the larger spacings, but never filled the allotted space. Dry-matter distribution was significantly influenced by spacing, and root to shoot ratio (R:S) was highest at the widest spacing. The vegetative behaviour of young apple trees was influenced by both rootstock vigour and tree spacing. Also, trees on the M.9 rootstock reflected greater ability to compete for available resources and adapt to space confinement and, therefore, may represent a better option for cultivation of apple in the settings and at the planting densities considered.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
M.9 rootstocks reduced stem and root growth through fewer or shorter shoots and roots.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Material
- M.9e1
- Treatment
- M.9 rootstockse1
- Outcome
- stem and root growthe1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- MM.106 rootstockse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Trees on less vigorous M.9 rootstocks showed reduced stem and root growth as they produced fewer and/or shorter shoots and fewer and/or shorter and thinner roots”
e2“M.9 and MM.106 rootstocks”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy spread area and volume were similar on both rootstocks.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- M.9e2
- Outcome
- Canopy spread area (CSA) and volumee1
- Direction
- similare1
- Comparator
- MM.106e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Canopy spread area (CSA) and volume were similar for trees on both rootstocks”
e2“M.9 and MM.106 rootstocks”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem length density compensated for the difference in stem growth between rootstocks.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- stem length densitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“differences in stem length density (stem length per unit canopy volume; SLD) compensated for the difference in stem growth”
Claim · model-written summary
On M.9, reduced root growth corresponded to reduced root spread area, which increased root length density did not compensate.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- M.9e1
- Outcome
- root spread area (RSA)e1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Comparator
- MM.106e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“For M.9 roots, the decrease in growth was reflected in the reduction in root spread area (RSA), which was not compensated for by the increase in root length density (root length per unit RSA; RLD)”
e2“M.9 and MM.106 rootstocks”
Claim · model-written summary
M.9 roots had increased root length density.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- M.9e2
- Outcome
- root length densitye1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Comparator
- MM.106e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“the increase in root length density (root length per unit RSA; RLD)”
e2“M.9 and MM.106 rootstocks”
Claim · model-written summary
M.9 trees allocated more dry matter above ground, while MM.106 trees allocated more to roots.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- M.9e1
- Outcome
- dry matter to above-ground structurese1
- Direction
- moree1
- Comparator
- MM.106e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Trees on M.9 allocated more dry matter to above-ground structures, whereas trees on MM.106 partitioned more to roots”
Claim · model-written summary
MM.106 trees partitioned more dry matter to roots.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- MM.106e1
- Outcome
- partitioned more to rootse1
- Direction
- moree1
- Comparator
- M.9e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“trees on MM.106 partitioned more to roots”
e2“Trees on M.9 allocated more dry matter”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf to root surface area ratio was greater on M.9.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- M.9e1
- Outcome
- Leaf to root surface area ratio (L:R)e1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Comparator
- MM.106e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Leaf to root surface area ratio (L:R) was also greater for trees on M.9”
e2“MM.106 rootstocks”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.4 m spacing, stems weighed less because they were thinner.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- 0.4.m aparte1
- Outcome
- Stemse1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Qualifier
- because they were thinnere1
- Comparator
- 0.7, and 1 me2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Stems of trees grown 0.4.m apart weighed less because they were thinner”
e2“in-row spacing (0.4, 0.7, and 1 m)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0.4 m spacing, trees produced fewer or shorter but thicker roots.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- 0.4.m aparte2
- Outcome
- rootse1
- Direction
- fewer and/or shorter, but thickere1
- Comparator
- 0.7, and 1 me3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“the same trees produced fewer and/or shorter, but thicker roots”
e2“Stems of trees grown 0.4.m apart”
e3“in-row spacing (0.4, 0.7, and 1 m)”
Claim · model-written summary
Root dry weights were similar across all spacings.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- 0.4e2
- Outcome
- root dry weightse1
- Direction
- similare1
- Comparator
- 0.7, and 1 me2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“similar root dry weights for trees at all spacings”
e2“in-row spacing (0.4, 0.7, and 1 m)”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy height increased with spacing on M.9.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- M.9e1
- Treatment
- spacinge1
- Outcome
- Canopy heighte1
- Direction
- increasede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Canopy height increased with spacing for trees on M.9”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy height was negatively related to spacing on MM.106.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- MM.106e1
- Treatment
- spacinge1
- Outcome
- Canopy heighte2
- Direction
- negativelye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“it was negatively related to spacing for MM.106”
e2“Canopy height increased with spacing for trees on M.9”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy spread area was rounder at wider spacings and exceeded allotted soil surface at the closest spacing.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- CSA was rounder at the wider spacingse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“CSA was rounder at the wider spacings and exceeded the allotted soil surface at the closest one”
Claim · model-written summary
Optimal row spacing was about 0.7 m for M.9 and 0.8 m for MM.106.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- M.9e1
- Outcome
- optimum in-row spacinge1
- Value
- 0.7.me1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three year old apple trees”
e1“optimum in-row spacing (no shoot overlap and full coverage of allotted space) was about 0.7.m for M.9 and 0.8.m for MM.106”
Claim · model-written summary
Optimal row spacing was about 0.8 m for MM.106.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- MM.106e1
- Outcome
- optimum in-row spacinge1
- Value
- 0.8.me1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three year old apple trees”
e1“optimum in-row spacing (no shoot overlap and full coverage of allotted space) was about 0.7.m for M.9 and 0.8.m for MM.106”
Claim · model-written summary
Root spread area was rounder at larger spacings but never filled the allotted space.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- RSA was also rounder at the larger spacings, but never filled the allotted spacee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“RSA was also rounder at the larger spacings, but never filled the allotted space”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry matter distribution was significantly influenced by spacing.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- spacinge1
- Outcome
- Dry-matter distributione1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“Dry-matter distribution was significantly influenced by spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
Root to shoot ratio was highest at the widest spacing.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- widest spacinge1
- Outcome
- root to shoot ratio (R:S)e1
- Direction
- higheste1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Malus domestica Borkh) trees”
e1“root to shoot ratio (R:S) was highest at the widest spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggested M.9 may be a better cultivation option at the studied settings and planting densities.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Material
- M.9e1
- Outcome
- better option for cultivation of applee1
- Qualifier
- in the settings and at the planting densities considerede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple in the settings and at the planting densities considered”
e1“trees on the M.9 rootstock reflected greater ability to compete for available resources and adapt to space confinement and, therefore, may represent a better option for cultivation of apple in the settings and at the planting densities considered”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.