Abstract
Response of `Delicious' apple to chemical thinning is often erratic. Experiments were conducted to test the effects of crop density, thinning and strain on yield and fruit size. The relationship between crop density and fruit size was determined in 3 orchards over 2 years. In one orchard the relationship was consistent in both years, but in the other two, it varied widely. Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) was applied to 10-year-old trees at one location in 2 successive years (1989-90). NAA treatments were compared with early hand thinning (15 days post bloom) in 1989 and with NAA plus carbarl (Sevin) in 1990. In 1989 both NAA and hand thinning reduced crop density and yield, but only hand thinning increased fruit size. No treatments applied in 1990 reduced crop density, and effects upon size and economic return were minimal. Strain differences in response to NAA and its amide (NAAm) were evaluated in 1989 and 1990. NAA (13 and 20 ppm) failed to reduce crop density in 1989, but fruit size was reduced. NAAm at 50 ppm overthinned both years, but was effective at 25 ppm in 1990. Fruit set was generally lower in non-spur than in spur strains.
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
The crop density–fruit size relationship was consistent across years in one apple orchard.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Outcome
- fruit sizee1
- Setting
- one orcharde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In one orchard the relationship was consistent in both years”
t0“APPLE”
e1“The relationship between crop density and fruit size was determined in 3 orchards over 2 years.”
Claim · model-written summary
The crop density–fruit size relationship varied widely in the other two apple orchards.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee1
- Setting
- other twoe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but in the other two, it varied widely.”
t0“APPLE”
e1“The relationship between crop density and fruit size was determined in 3 orchards over 2 years.”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA reduced apple crop density in 1989.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1989 both NAA and hand thinning reduced crop density and yield”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand thinning reduced apple crop density in 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- hand thinninge0
- Outcome
- crop densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 1989e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1989 both NAA and hand thinning reduced crop density and yield”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA reduced apple yield in 1989.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1989 both NAA and hand thinning reduced crop density and yield”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand thinning reduced apple yield in 1989.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1989 both NAA and hand thinning reduced crop density and yield”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
Only hand thinning increased apple fruit size in 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- hand thinninge0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but only hand thinning increased fruit size.”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
No 1990 treatment reduced apple crop density.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- treatments applied in 1990e0
- Outcome
- crop densitye0
- Direction
- No treatments applied in 1990 reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No treatments applied in 1990 reduced crop density”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple fruit size effects of 1990 treatments were minimal.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- treatments applied in 1990e1
- Outcome
- sizee0
- Direction
- minimale0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects upon size and economic return were minimal.”
t0“APPLE”
e1“No treatments applied in 1990 reduced crop density”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple economic return effects of 1990 treatments were minimal.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- treatments applied in 1990e1
- Outcome
- economic returne0
- Direction
- minimale0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effects upon size and economic return were minimal.”
t0“APPLE”
e1“No treatments applied in 1990 reduced crop density”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA at 13 and 20 ppm did not reduce apple crop density in 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- NAA (13 and 20 ppm)e0
- Outcome
- crop densitye0
- Direction
- failed to reducee0
- Qualifier
- 1989e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NAA (13 and 20 ppm) failed to reduce crop density in 1989”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
NAA at 13 and 20 ppm reduced apple fruit size in 1989.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- NAA (13 and 20 ppm)e0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- 1989e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NAA (13 and 20 ppm) failed to reduce crop density in 1989, but fruit size was reduced.”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
NAAm at 50 ppm overthinned apple trees in both years.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- NAAm at 50 ppme0
- Outcome
- overthinnede0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NAAm at 50 ppm overthinned both years”
t0“APPLE”
Claim · model-written summary
NAAm at 25 ppm effectively thinned apple trees in 1990.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- NAAme1
- Outcome
- effectivee0
- Qualifier
- 1990e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was effective at 25 ppm in 1990.”
t0“APPLE”
e1“NAAm at 50 ppm overthinned both years, but was effective at 25 ppm in 1990.”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple fruit set was generally lower in non-spur than spur strains.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- non-spure0
- Outcome
- Fruit sete0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- spur strainse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit set was generally lower in non-spur than in spur strains.”
t0“APPLE”
The same questions in other papers
1-naphthaleneacetic acid · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
61 papers more in this group
See all 65 papers →pruning · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
99 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
143 papers more in this group
See all 147 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.