Paper · 2007 · Xibei nongye xuebao

Effect of Peat and Chicken Manure on Soil Property and Fruit Quality in Peach Garden

Qiang Zhang

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The method of localizing soil amendment was utilized to study the effect of peat and chicken manure combination on soil property,leaves' nutrition and fruit quality of peach tree.The results showed that soil physical characters in 20~40 cm soil layers were significantly improved by applying combination of peat and chicken manure,especially the C1P2(Peat 20+chicken manure 50).The nutrition contents in soil and leaves was significantly increased in C1P2,especially the contents of total-K was the highest in treatment C1P2.It is goof for growing of plants.The average fruit weight and soluble solid matter were improved by applying combination of peat and chicken manure,while titration acid was decreased.The fruit firmness was no significantly influenced.The percentage of(soluble solid)/(titration acid) was significantly improved in C1P2 than CK.The increased ratio was 21.09%.Therefore,C1P2 was the best treatments.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat and chicken manure significantly improved soil physical characters at 20~40 cm, especially C1P2.

Treatment
combination of peat and chicken manuree0
Outcome
soil physical characterse0
Direction
improvede0
Qualifier
20~40 cm soil layerse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil physical characters in 20~40 cm soil layers were significantly improved by applying combination of peat and chicken manure,especially the C1P2(Peat 20+chicken manure 50)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 203–377 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

C1P2 significantly increased nutrient contents in soil and leaves.

Treatment
C1P2e0
Outcome
nutrition contents in soil and leavese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The nutrition contents in soil and leaves was significantly increased in C1P2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 378–455 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total K content was highest under C1P2.

Treatment
C1P2e0
Outcome
contents of total-Ke0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“especially the contents of total-K was the highest in treatment C1P2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 456–524 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat and chicken manure improved average peach fruit weight.

Treatment
combination of peat and chicken manuree0
Outcome
average fruit weighte0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average fruit weight and soluble solid matter were improved by applying combination of peat and chicken manure,while titration acid was decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–707 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat and chicken manure improved fruit soluble solids.

Treatment
combination of peat and chicken manuree0
Outcome
soluble solid mattere0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The average fruit weight and soluble solid matter were improved by applying combination of peat and chicken manure,while titration acid was decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–707 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat and chicken manure decreased titratable acid.

Treatment
combination of peat and chicken manuree0
Outcome
titration acide0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soluble solid matter were improved by applying combination of peat and chicken manure,while titration acid was decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 587–707 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Peat and chicken manure did not significantly affect fruit firmness.

Outcome
fruit firmnesse0
Direction
no significantly influencede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The fruit firmness was no significantly influenced.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 708–759 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

C1P2 increased the soluble solids to titratable acid percentage by 21.09% versus CK.

Treatment
C1P2e0
Outcome
percentage of(soluble solid)/(titration acid)e0
Direction
improvede0
Value
21.09%e0
Comparator
CKe0

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The percentage of(soluble solid)/(titration acid) was significantly improved in C1P2 than CK.The increased ratio was 21.09%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 759–883 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors identified C1P2 as the best treatment.

Outcome
C1P2 was the best treatmentse0

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Therefore,C1P2 was the best treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 883–922 · show in text ↑
t0

“Peach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–77 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ

59 papers: 50 positive, 9 negative or no effect

49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

55 papers more in this group

See all 59 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.