Paper · 2015 · HortScience

Floor Management Systems in an Organic Apple Orchard Affect Fruit Quality and Storage Life

Ibrahim I. Tahir; Sven-Erik Svensson; David Hansson

16
claims
31
verbatim quotes
29
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In an organic apple orchard, standard mechanical cultivation was compared with four different orchard floor management systems (OFMS): acetic acid (V), living mulch (L), a sandwich system during the growing season (SSS), and a sandwich system during the whole year (SSW). The effects of these OFMS on weed management, soil conditions, tree growth, tree yield, fruit quality, and fruit storage potential in a cool climate were evaluated. Acetic acid treatment showed good weed suppression without any amendatory effect on soil conditions, fruit quality, or tree performance. The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality, but had no sufficient influence on weed competition and thus decreased fruit yield. Only SSW gave better weed control, higher soil respiration, and acceptable tree growth with no yield reduction. Fruit from this system also showed better quality at harvest than fruit from other OFMS and maintained this good quality during storage. A 6-week weed-free period from late May to mid-July gave the highest apple yield in two OFMS (SSW and V).

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 16

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Acetic acid suppressed orchard weeds.

Treatment
Acetic acid treatmente0
Outcome
weed suppressione0
Direction
goode0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Acetic acid treatment showed good weed suppression”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 437–487 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Acetic acid did not amend soil conditions, fruit quality or tree performance.

Treatment
Acetic acide0
Outcome
soil conditions, fruit quality, or tree performancee0
Direction
without any amendatory effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Acetic acid treatment showed good weed suppression without any amendatory effect on soil conditions, fruit quality, or tree performance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 437–573 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Living mulch increased orchard soil respiration.

Treatment
Le0
Outcome
soil respiratione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The seasonal sandwich system increased orchard soil respiration.

Treatment
SSSe0
Outcome
soil respiratione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Living mulch decreased apple tree vigor.

Treatment
Le0
Outcome
tree vigore0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The seasonal sandwich system decreased apple tree vigor.

Treatment
SSSe0
Outcome
tree vigore0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Living mulch improved apple fruit quality.

Treatment
Le0
Outcome
fruit qualitye0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The seasonal sandwich system improved apple fruit quality.

Treatment
SSSe0
Outcome
fruit qualitye0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Living mulch insufficiently controlled weeds and reduced apple yield.

Treatment
Le0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
no sufficient influence on weed competitione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality, but had no sufficient influence on weed competition and thus decreased fruit yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–757 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The seasonal sandwich system insufficiently controlled weeds and reduced apple yield.

Treatment
SSSe0
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
no sufficient influence on weed competitione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The L and SSS systems increased soil respiration, decreased tree vigor, and improved fruit quality, but had no sufficient influence on weed competition and thus decreased fruit yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–757 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The year-round sandwich system improved weed control.

Treatment
SSWe0
Outcome
weed controle0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Only SSW gave better weed control, higher soil respiration, and acceptable tree growth with no yield reduction.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–869 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The year-round sandwich system increased soil respiration.

Treatment
SSWe0
Outcome
soil respiratione0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Only SSW gave better weed control, higher soil respiration, and acceptable tree growth with no yield reduction.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–869 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The year-round sandwich system maintained acceptable tree growth without reducing yield.

Treatment
SSWe0
Outcome
tree growth with no yield reductione0
Direction
no yield reductione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Only SSW gave better weed control, higher soil respiration, and acceptable tree growth with no yield reduction.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–869 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The year-round sandwich system improved fruit quality at harvest compared with other floor systems.

Treatment
this systeme0
Outcome
quality at harveste0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
other OFMSe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit from this system also showed better quality at harvest than fruit from other OFMS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 870–957 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit quality from the year-round sandwich system remained good in storage.

Outcome
good quality during storagee0
Direction
maintainede0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maintained this good quality during storage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 962–1006 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A six-week weed-free interval gave the highest apple yield under SSW and acetic acid floor management.

Treatment
6-week weed-free period from late May to mid-Julye0
Outcome
apple yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
SSW and Ve0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A 6-week weed-free period from late May to mid-July gave the highest apple yield in two OFMS (SSW and V).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1007–1112 · show in text ↑

climate site · quality: grain · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

climate site · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 1 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

climate site · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 4 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

herbicide · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 17 positive, 4 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 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.