Abstract
【Objective】The aim of this experiment was to research the best application pattern of beer sludge compost on apple trees and yield-increasing mechanism. 【Method】 The effects of beer sludge compost treated with three application methods including blending(H), mulching(F), blending and mulching(HF) on the growth of apple trees, leaf physiological characteristics and the root morphology. 【Result】The test results were as follows: The beer sludge compost with different application methods could significantly promote apple seedlings growth. H, HF treatments could significantly enhance dry stem diameter, branch diameter, leaf area per leaf, and leaf area per plant. Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, carotenoid content and Pn were significantly enhanced,chlorophyll a/b and transpiration rate were significantly reduced compared with CK. Beer sludge compost could enhance leaf antioxidant enzyme activities and reduce harm, H and HF treatments were better than F. Root length, root surface area, root volume,root fresh weight, and root number were significantly higher than CK with H, F, HF treatments. Apple seedlings roots growth could be induced and promoted with beer sludge compost, and H and HF treatments were better. The root vigor of H, F, and HF were,respectively, increased by 53.68%, 40.50%, and 77.72% compared with CK. 【Conclusion】The beer sludge compost was applied with three different methods could promote the growth of apple trees, and improve the physiological indexes of leaf and root. In the whole, HF treatment integrated the advantages of H and F treatments, and it was the most effective application method.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Beer sludge compost significantly promoted apple seedling growth.
- Taxon
- apple seedlings
Malus domesticae0 - Treatment
- beer sludge composte0
- Outcome
- apple seedlings growthe0
- Direction
- promotee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“beer sludge compost with different application methods could significantly promote apple seedlings growth”
Claim · model-written summary
H and HF significantly increased stem and branch diameters and leaf area traits.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- H, HF treatmentse0
- Outcome
- dry stem diameter, branch diameter, leaf area per leafe0
- Direction
- enhancee0
- Qualifier
- leaf area per plante0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“H, HF treatments could significantly enhance dry stem diameter, branch diameter, leaf area per leaf, and leaf area per plant”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost enhanced chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, carotenoids, and Pn relative to CK.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- beer sludge compostt0
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, carotenoid contente0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Qualifier
- Pne0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll a, Chlorophyll b, carotenoid content and Pn were significantly enhanced,chlorophyll a/b and transpiration rate were significantly reduced compared with CK”
t0“Beer Sludge Compost on Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost reduced chlorophyll a/b and transpiration rate relative to CK.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Beer Sludge Compostt0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll a/b and transpiration ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chlorophyll a/b and transpiration rate were significantly reduced compared with CK”
t0“Beer Sludge Compost on Growth and Physiological Characteristics of Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost enhanced leaf antioxidant enzyme activities and reduced harm, with H and HF better than F.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Beer sludge composte0
- Outcome
- leaf antioxidant enzyme activitiese0
- Direction
- enhancee0
- Qualifier
- H and HF treatments were better than Fe0
- Comparator
- Fe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Beer sludge compost could enhance leaf antioxidant enzyme activities and reduce harm, H and HF treatments were better than F”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
All three treatments significantly increased root length, surface area, volume, fresh weight, and number versus CK.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- H, F, HF treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Root length, root surface area, root volumee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- root fresh weight, and root numbere0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root length, root surface area, root volume,root fresh weight, and root number were significantly higher than CK with H, F, HF treatments”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
H increased root vigor by 53.68% versus CK.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- He0
- Outcome
- root vigore0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 53.68%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root vigor of H, F, and HF were,respectively, increased by 53.68%, 40.50%, and 77.72% compared with CK”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
F increased root vigor by 40.50% versus CK.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Fe0
- Outcome
- root vigore0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 40.50%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root vigor of H, F, and HF were,respectively, increased by 53.68%, 40.50%, and 77.72% compared with CK”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
HF increased root vigor by 77.72% versus CK.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- HFe0
- Outcome
- root vigore0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 77.72%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root vigor of H, F, and HF were,respectively, increased by 53.68%, 40.50%, and 77.72% compared with CK”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
Claim · model-written summary
H and HF promoted root growth more than F.
- Taxon
- Apple seedlingsMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- H and HF treatmentse0
- Outcome
- roots growthe0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple seedlings roots growth could be induced and promoted with beer sludge compost, and H and HF treatments were better”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered HF the most effective application method.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- HF treatmente0
- Outcome
- most effective application methode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HF treatment integrated the advantages of H and F treatments, and it was the most effective application method”
t0“Apple Seedlings”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: biology · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →fertilization · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
89 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
102 papers more in this group
See all 106 papers →organic · physiology: pigments · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
organic · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
11 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.