Abstract
In order to improve production efficiency of pomegranate which may appear insect pest,sunscald,russet, cracking fruit during the growth process,the paper compared the effect of membrane bags and paper bags on the quality of pomegranate.The results showed that the weight of bagging membrane pomegranate was significantly higher than paper bags and non-bagging fruit,the fruit cracking rate,the concentration of sugar and acidity was significantly lower than bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruit.Compared with non-bagging fruit,the weight of bagging paper pomegranates was higher and the concentration of sugar and was close to.The concentration of sugar of bagging paper was significantly higher than bagging membrane,but the acidity was equal to bagging membrane.Not only enhanced the production efficiency the technology of bagging pomegranate,but also madethe fruit sweet,acid taste with size uniformity,bright color.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Membrane bagging produced significantly heavier pomegranate fruit than paper bagging and no bagging.
- Taxon
- pomegranate
Punica granatume0 - Treatment
- bagging membranee0
- Outcome
- weighte0
- Direction
- significantly highere0
- Comparator
- paper bags and non-bagging fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the weight of bagging membrane pomegranate was significantly higher than paper bags and non-bagging fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Membrane bagging gave a significantly lower fruit cracking rate than paper bagging and no bagging.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- bagging membranee1
- Outcome
- fruit cracking ratee0
- Direction
- significantly lowere0
- Comparator
- bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the fruit cracking rate,the concentration of sugar and acidity was significantly lower than bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruit”
e1“The concentration of sugar of bagging paper was significantly higher than bagging membrane,but the acidity was equal to bagging membrane”
t0“Effect of Paper Bags on Quality of Pomegranate”
Claim · model-written summary
Membrane bagging yielded significantly lower sugar concentration than paper bagging and no bagging.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- bagging membranee1
- Outcome
- concentration of sugare0
- Direction
- significantly lowere0
- Comparator
- bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the concentration of sugar and acidity was significantly lower than bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruit”
e1“The concentration of sugar of bagging paper was significantly higher than bagging membrane,but the acidity was equal to bagging membrane”
t0“Effect of Paper Bags on Quality of Pomegranate”
Claim · model-written summary
Membrane bagging yielded significantly lower acidity than paper bagging and no bagging.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- bagging membranee1
- Outcome
- aciditye0
- Direction
- significantly lowere0
- Comparator
- bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the concentration of sugar and acidity was significantly lower than bagging paper fruit and non-bagging fruit”
e1“The concentration of sugar of bagging paper was significantly higher than bagging membrane,but the acidity was equal to bagging membrane”
t0“Effect of Paper Bags on Quality of Pomegranate”
Claim · model-written summary
Paper bagging produced heavier fruit than no bagging.
- Taxon
- pomegranatesPunica granatume0
- Treatment
- bagging papere0
- Outcome
- weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- non-bagging fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with non-bagging fruit,the weight of bagging paper pomegranates was higher”
Claim · model-written summary
Paper bagging had similar acidity to membrane bagging.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- bagging papere1
- Outcome
- aciditye0
- Direction
- equale0
- Comparator
- bagging membranee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the acidity was equal to bagging membrane”
e1“The concentration of sugar of bagging paper was significantly higher than bagging membrane,but the acidity was equal to bagging membrane”
t0“Effect of Paper Bags on Quality of Pomegranate”
Claim · model-written summary
Bagging was judged to enhance pomegranate production efficiency and improve taste, size uniformity and colour.
- Taxon
- pomegranatePunica granatume0
- Outcome
- production efficiencye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enhanced the production efficiency the technology of bagging pomegranate,but also madethe fruit sweet,acid taste with size uniformity,bright color”
The same questions in other papers
trap barrier · molecular: metabolites · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
trap barrier · quality: sugar starch · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →trap barrier · growth · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.