Paper · 2001 · Tree Physiology

Effects of irrigation deprivation during the harvest period on nonstructural carbohydrate and nitrogen contents of dormant, mature almond trees

G. Esparza; T. M. DeJong; S. A. Weinbaum

11
claims
30
verbatim quotes
43
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Effect of irrigation deprivation during the harvest period on the nonstructural carbohydrate (NC) content of dormant, mature, field-grown almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb cv. Nonpareil) trees was studied. Roots, trunk, branches, spurs and stems of 12 trees were subsampled in February 1997, across a gradient of irrigation treatments (FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed) to relate NC concentration to the degree of water stress experienced by individual trees during the previous (1996) harvest period. To assess the effect of water stress on whole-tree NC content, three dormant FI trees and three dormant SS trees were excavated on December 10, 1997, and dry weights and NC and N concentrations of the tree components were determined. Whole-tree biomass did not differ significantly between FI and SS trees, although SS trees tended to have less total dry weight. Although roots constituted just 13% of tree biomass, they stored 36 and 44% of tree NC and N contents, respectively. There were negative relationships between the seasonal minimum values of both midday (Psi(ms)) and predawn (Psi(pd)) stem water potentials during the harvest period and root NC content of dormant trees. Severe water stress during the harvest period resulted in a 26% reduction in NC content and a 50% reduction in biomass of current-year stems (> 5 cm in length) per tree. The reduction in NC content is consistent with the previously reported late season reductions in leaf function and persistence. The SS trees exhibited a reduction in NC content but not in N content per tree, indicating that late season accumulation of NC and N were uncoupled in trees subjected to severe harvest-period water stress.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Whole-tree biomass did not differ significantly between fully irrigated and severely stressed almond trees.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Treatment
SSe0
Outcome
Whole-tree biomasse0
Direction
did not differe0
Comparator
FIe0

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Whole-tree biomass did not differ significantly between FI and SS trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 783–854 · show in text ↑
e1

“FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 342–415 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Severely stressed almond trees tended to have less total dry weight.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Treatment
SSe0
Outcome
total dry weighte0
Direction
lesse0
Qualifier
tendede0
Comparator
FIe1

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“SS trees tended to have less total dry weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–910 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
e1

“FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 342–415 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Almond roots made up 13% of tree biomass.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
rootse0
Outcome
tree biomasse0
Value
13%e0

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“roots constituted just 13% of tree biomass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 921–963 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Almond roots stored 36% of tree nonstructural carbohydrate content.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
rootse1
Outcome
tree NCe0
Value
36e0

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“they stored 36 and 44% of tree NC and N contents, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1027 · show in text ↑
e1

“roots constituted just 13% of tree biomass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 921–963 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Almond roots stored 44% of tree nitrogen content.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
rootse1
Outcome
N contentse0
Value
44%e0

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“they stored 36 and 44% of tree NC and N contents, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1027 · show in text ↑
e1

“roots constituted just 13% of tree biomass”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 921–963 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seasonal minimum midday stem water potential was negatively related to root nonstructural carbohydrate content.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
roote0
Outcome
root NC contente0
Direction
negativee0
Qualifier
midday (Psi(ms))e0

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“negative relationships between the seasonal minimum values of both midday (Psi(ms)) and predawn (Psi(pd)) stem water potentials during the harvest period and root NC content of dormant trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1040–1230 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seasonal minimum predawn stem water potential was negatively related to root nonstructural carbohydrate content.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
roote0
Outcome
root NC contente0
Direction
negativee0
Qualifier
predawn (Psi(pd))e0

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“negative relationships between the seasonal minimum values of both midday (Psi(ms)) and predawn (Psi(pd)) stem water potentials during the harvest period and root NC content of dormant trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1040–1230 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe harvest-period water stress reduced current-year stem nonstructural carbohydrate content by 26%.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
current-year stemse0
Treatment
Severe water stresse0
Outcome
NC contente0
Direction
reductione0
Value
26%e0
Comparator
fully irrigatede1

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Severe water stress during the harvest period resulted in a 26% reduction in NC content and a 50% reduction in biomass of current-year stems (> 5 cm in length) per tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1232–1400 · show in text ↑
e1

“FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 342–415 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Severe harvest-period water stress reduced current-year stem biomass by 50%.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Organ / stage
current-year stemse0
Treatment
Severe water stresse0
Outcome
biomass of current-year stemse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
50%e0
Comparator
fully irrigatede1

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Severe water stress during the harvest period resulted in a 26% reduction in NC content and a 50% reduction in biomass of current-year stems (> 5 cm in length) per tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1232–1400 · show in text ↑
e1

“FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 342–415 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Severely stressed almond trees had reduced nonstructural carbohydrate content per tree.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Treatment
SSe0
Outcome
NC contente0
Direction
reductione0
Comparator
FIe1

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The SS trees exhibited a reduction in NC content but not in N content per tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1530–1608 · show in text ↑
e1

“FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 342–415 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Severely stressed almond trees did not show reduced nitrogen content per tree.

Taxon
almondPrunus dulcist0
Treatment
SSe0
Outcome
N content per treee0
Direction
note0
Comparator
FIe1

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

Prunus dulcis
Prunus dulcis · TaxonIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The SS trees exhibited a reduction in NC content but not in N content per tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1530–1608 · show in text ↑
e1

“FI = fully irrigated, MS = moderately stressed and SS = severely stressed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 342–415 · show in text ↑
t0

“almond trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 131–143 · show in text ↑

drought · growth · Prunus dulcis (almond)Results agree

6 papers: 0 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.