Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of different alternative irrigating-cycle on plant growth,yield and quality and water use efficiency of 11 and 12-year-old apple trees (Malus pumila Mill.cv.Hongjingfu) subjected to control and alternative partial root-zone irrigation (APRI) in Yantai Fruit Research Academy of Agricultural Science from 2006 to 2007.The results showed that in APRI treatments,the soil moisture content in the wet side of apple trees decreased with increasing soil depth,and obviously the alternate shorter period,inflexion point more near the surface,while that in the dry side was adverse,with the maximum difference occurring in 0—10 cm of soil surface layer.For APRI1 treatment (irrigation with 50% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every 2 weeks),the water potential of leaves,net photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate and stomatal conductance were slightly low,but no significant differences existed compared to CK (irrigated with 100% on both sides of the root system).The above-mentioned indices for both APRI2 (irrigation with 50% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every 2 weeks) and APRI3 (irrigation with 100% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every four weeks) were significantly lower than those in the control (P 0.05).The APRI treatments significantly inhibited the shoot growth of apple trees,but had no significant influence on fruit diameter.Apple yield was significantly higher in both of the control and APRI3 treatments,compared to APRI1 and APRI2 treatments.The slight APRI-induced yield reduction (11.1%—14.8%) compared to the control was achieved by 50% decrease in the total amount of water applied,which resulted in the water use efficiency increase by 71%—80% under APRI1 and APRI2 treatments,compared to the control and APRI3.Furthermore,the APRI1 and APRI2 treatments induced the significant increase of the soluble solids content,dry matter content and fruit hardness,and the decrease of fruit acid content,which made the fruit quality improved obviously.It was concluded that APRI1 had the potential for use in apple orchard as a high-quality efficient irrigation pattern in the arid land.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Under APRI, soil moisture on the wet side decreased with increasing depth.
- Taxon
- apple trees
Malus domesticat0 - Outcome
- soil moisture content in the wet side of apple treese0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“the soil moisture content in the wet side of apple trees decreased with increasing soil depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Under APRI, dry-side soil moisture followed the opposite depth pattern, with maximum wet-dry difference in the top 0—10 cm.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- maximum differencee0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 0—10 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“while that in the dry side was adverse,with the maximum difference occurring in 0—10 cm of soil surface layer”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI1 slightly lowered leaf water potential, photosynthesis, transpiration, and stomatal conductance versus CK without significant differences.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI1 treatmente0
- Outcome
- water potential of leaves,net photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- slightly lowe0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“For APRI1 treatment (irrigation with 50% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every 2 weeks),the water potential of leaves,net photosynthetic rate,transpiration rate and stomatal conductance were slightly low,but no significant differences existed compared to CK”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI2 significantly lowered the four leaf physiology indices versus control.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI2e0
- Outcome
- above-mentioned indicese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“The above-mentioned indices for both APRI2 (irrigation with 50% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every 2 weeks) and APRI3 (irrigation with 100% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every four weeks) were significantly lower than those in the control”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI3 significantly lowered the four leaf physiology indices versus control.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI3e0
- Outcome
- above-mentioned indicese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“The above-mentioned indices for both APRI2 (irrigation with 50% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every 2 weeks) and APRI3 (irrigation with 100% of the control,on one side of the root system and switched every four weeks) were significantly lower than those in the control”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI significantly inhibited apple shoot growth.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI treatmentse0
- Outcome
- shoot growth of apple treese0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“The APRI treatments significantly inhibited the shoot growth of apple trees”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI did not significantly influence fruit diameter.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI treatmentse1
- Outcome
- fruit diametere0
- Direction
- no significant influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“had no significant influence on fruit diameter”
e1“The APRI treatments significantly inhibited”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple yield was higher under control than APRI1 and APRI2.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- controle0
- Outcome
- Apple yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- APRI1 and APRI2 treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“Apple yield was significantly higher in both of the control and APRI3 treatments,compared to APRI1 and APRI2 treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple yield was higher under APRI3 than APRI1 and APRI2.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI3 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Apple yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- APRI1 and APRI2 treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“Apple yield was significantly higher in both of the control and APRI3 treatments,compared to APRI1 and APRI2 treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI1 and APRI2 reduced yield by 11.1%—14.8% versus control.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRIe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 11.1%—14.8%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“The slight APRI-induced yield reduction (11.1%—14.8%) compared to the control was achieved by 50% decrease in the total amount of water applied”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI1 and APRI2 reduced total applied water by 50%.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRIe0
- Outcome
- total amount of water appliede0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“The slight APRI-induced yield reduction (11.1%—14.8%) compared to the control was achieved by 50% decrease in the total amount of water applied”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI1 and APRI2 increased water use efficiency by 71%—80% relative to control and APRI3.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI1 and APRI2 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 71%—80%e0
- Comparator
- the control and APRI3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“the water use efficiency increase by 71%—80% under APRI1 and APRI2 treatments,compared to the control and APRI3”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI1 and APRI2 significantly increased fruit soluble solids, dry matter, and hardness.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI1 and APRI2 treatmentse0
- Outcome
- soluble solids content,dry matter content and fruit hardnesse0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“the APRI1 and APRI2 treatments induced the significant increase of the soluble solids content,dry matter content and fruit hardness”
Claim · model-written summary
APRI1 and APRI2 decreased fruit acid content.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- APRI1 and APRI2 treatmentse1
- Outcome
- fruit acid contente0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“the decrease of fruit acid content”
e1“the APRI1 and APRI2 treatments induced the significant increase”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude APRI1 has potential as an efficient high-quality irrigation pattern in arid apple orchards.
- Taxon
- apple treesMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- APRI1 had the potential for use in apple orchard as a high-quality efficient irrigation pattern in the arid lande0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple trees”
e0“APRI1 had the potential for use in apple orchard as a high-quality efficient irrigation pattern in the arid land”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 papers →irrigation · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 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.