Paper · 2002 · Guizhou nongye kexue

Influence of Summer Pruning Methods on Plum Growth and Development

Jin Fang

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Research on the influence of different summer pruning methods on plum growth and development was carried out, The results were: compared to traditional non-pruning method,the treatment of cutting spring branch by one third and topping can bring fewer spring branches and stimulate growth of the secondary branches: 2.2 to 2.6 secondary branches (longer than 30 cm) emerged from per spring branch. And the numbers of flower and fruit were also increased.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutting spring branches and topping reduced spring branch number.

Treatment
cutting spring branch by one third and toppinge0
Outcome
spring branchese0
Direction
fewere0
Comparator
traditional non-pruning methode0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“compared to traditional non-pruning method,the treatment of cutting spring branch by one third and topping can bring fewer spring branches”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 128–266 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning stimulated secondary branches, with 2.2 to 2.6 per spring branch.

Treatment
cutting spring branch by one third and toppinge0
Outcome
growth of the secondary branchese0
Direction
stimulatee0
Value
2.2 to 2.6 secondary branchese0
Comparator
traditional non-pruning methode0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“compared to traditional non-pruning method,the treatment of cutting spring branch by one third and topping can bring fewer spring branches and stimulate growth of the secondary branches: 2.2 to 2.6 secondary branches (longer than 30 cm) emerged from per spring branch.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 128–396 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–43 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning increased flower and fruit numbers.

Outcome
numbers of flower and fruite0
Direction
increasede0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“And the numbers of flower and fruit were also increased.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 397–453 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–43 · show in text ↑

pruning · growth · Prunus domestica (plum)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 8 positive, 6 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.