Abstract
SummaryThe source-sink position of 3-year-old, potted ‘O’Henry’ peach trees was manipulated by arranging the sources and sinks in opposite positions in order to investigate the effect of directional movement of assimilates from source leaves to fruit sinks. Six different treatments were applied: 1) control-fully irrigated (C-FI), in which irrigation was applied to achieve non-stress conditions, without removal of either leaves or fruit; 2) control-deficit irrigated (C-DI), in which irrigation was reduced to obtain a moderate deficit, without removal of either leaves or fruit; 3) downward movement of assimilates-deficit irrigated (Down-DI), in which fruits from the upper part and leaves from the lower part of the tree were removed; 4) upward movement of assimilates-deficit irrigated (Up-DI), in which fruits from the lower part and leaves from the upper part of the tree were removed. The last two treatments [(5) and (6)] were identical to the Down-DI and Up-DI treatments, but source leaves and fruit sinks were isolated by girdling. Changes in stem water potential ( stem) and transpiration rate (T) were evaluated. Fruit growth analysis was based on the expected theoretical response of fruit dry mass gain to stem. The experimental conditions allowed expression of potential differences in carbon transport efficiency (i.e., the distance between leaves and fruits was sufficient to cause limitations on fruit growth) and the reserves originating from fruit-bearing shoots were relatively small (20%) in comparison with the requirements for optimum fruit growth. Under these conditions, fruits on Down-DI trees did not exhibit significant differences in their capacity to accumulate carbohydrates with respect to Up-DI fruits. The data appear to indicate that, under moderate water stress conditions, resistance to assimilate transport does not differ greatly between upward and downward movement within trees.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot reserves were small relative to requirements for optimum fruit growth.
- Taxon
- peach trees
Prunus persicat0 - Outcome
- reserves originating from fruit-bearing shootse0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Comparator
- requirements for optimum fruit growthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the reserves originating from fruit-bearing shoots were relatively small (20%) in comparison with the requirements for optimum fruit growth.”
t0“peach trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Down-DI and Up-DI fruit did not differ significantly in capacity to accumulate carbohydrates.
- Taxon
- peach treesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Down-DIe0
- Outcome
- capacity to accumulate carbohydratese0
- Direction
- did not exhibit significant differencese0
- Comparator
- Up-DIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruits on Down-DI trees did not exhibit significant differences in their capacity to accumulate carbohydrates with respect to Up-DI fruits.”
t0“peach trees”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer little difference in transport resistance between upward and downward movement under moderate water stress.
- Taxon
- peach treesPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- resistance to assimilate transporte0
- Direction
- does not differ greatlye0
- Comparator
- upward and downward movemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under moderate water stress conditions, resistance to assimilate transport does not differ greatly between upward and downward movement within trees.”
t0“peach trees”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- 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.