Paper · 1991 · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Fruit and Hormones Influence Flowering of Apple. II. Effects of Hormones

Joann M. McLaughlin; Duane W. Greene

12
claims
24
verbatim quotes
27
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Combination postbloom sprays of BA at 50 mg·liter -1 and daminozide at 2000 mg·liter -1 were made to limbs of `Early McIntosh' apple (Malus domestics Borkh.) where all of the flowers were either removed before full bloom or allowed to remain. BA and fruit removal increased return bloom, whereas daminozide bad no effect. No treatment had a consistent effect on spur leaf area. Repeat sprays of GA 4+7 to `Delicious' apple trees at full bloom (FB) +5, FB + 14, and FB +22 days reduced appendage development and flower bud formation on spurs. One spray of GA d+7 at 150 mg·liter -1 at FB +42 days reduced appendage formation and the percentage of flowering spurs but not as effectively as earlier repeat sprays of GA 4+7 at 50 mg·liter -1 When BA at 150 mg·liter -1 was combined with the GA at FB +42 days, appendage formation was increased but the reduction in flowering was not reversed. One BA spray at 50 mg·liter -1 at FB +22 days to `McIntosh' trees increased the number of appendages formed in spurs, but return bloom was not influenced. Chemical names used: (N -phenylmethyl) -1 H -purine-6-amine (BA); butanedioic acid mono (2, 2-dimethylhydrazide) (daminozide); gibberellins A 4 and A 7 (GA 4+7 ).

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BA increased return bloom in Early McIntosh apple.

Treatment
BAe0
Outcome
return bloome0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedMaterialComparator

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“BA and fruit removal increased return bloom”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–286 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit removal increased return bloom in apple.

Treatment
fruit removale0
Outcome
return bloome0
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

“BA and fruit removal increased return bloom”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–286 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Daminozide had no effect on return bloom in apple.

Treatment
daminozidee0
Outcome
effecte0
Direction
no 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

“whereas daminozide bad no effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 288–320 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No treatment consistently affected spur leaf area in apple.

Treatment
No treatmente0
Outcome
spur leaf areae0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“No treatment had a consistent effect on spur leaf area”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–376 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Repeat GA 4+7 sprays reduced appendage development in Delicious apple spurs.

Material
Deliciouse0
Organ / stage
spurse0
Treatment
Repeat sprays of GA 4+7e0
Outcome
appendage developmente0
Direction
reducede0

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

“Repeat sprays of GA 4+7 to `Delicious' apple trees at full bloom (FB) +5, FB + 14, and FB +22 days reduced appendage development and flower bud formation on spurs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 378–540 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Repeat GA 4+7 sprays reduced flower bud formation in Delicious apple spurs.

Material
Deliciouse0
Organ / stage
spurse0
Treatment
Repeat sprays of GA 4+7e0
Outcome
flower bud formatione0
Direction
reducede0

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

“Repeat sprays of GA 4+7 to `Delicious' apple trees at full bloom (FB) +5, FB + 14, and FB +22 days reduced appendage development and flower bud formation on spurs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 378–540 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A late GA spray reduced appendage formation less effectively than earlier repeat sprays.

Treatment
One spray of GA d+7 at 150 mg·liter -1 at FB +42 dayse0
Outcome
appendage formatione0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
earlier repeat sprays of GA 4+7 at 50 mg·liter -1e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“One spray of GA d+7 at 150 mg·liter -1 at FB +42 days reduced appendage formation and the percentage of flowering spurs but not as effectively as earlier repeat sprays of GA 4+7 at 50 mg·liter -1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–737 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A late GA spray reduced percentage of flowering spurs less effectively than earlier repeat sprays.

Treatment
One spray of GA d+7 at 150 mg·liter -1 at FB +42 dayse0
Outcome
percentage of flowering spurse0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
earlier repeat sprays of GA 4+7 at 50 mg·liter -1e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“One spray of GA d+7 at 150 mg·liter -1 at FB +42 days reduced appendage formation and the percentage of flowering spurs but not as effectively as earlier repeat sprays of GA 4+7 at 50 mg·liter -1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 542–737 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding BA to late GA increased appendage formation.

Treatment
BA at 150 mg·liter -1 was combined with the GA at FB +42 dayse0
Outcome
appendage formatione0
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

“When BA at 150 mg·liter -1 was combined with the GA at FB +42 days, appendage formation was increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–839 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding BA to late GA did not reverse the reduction in flowering.

Outcome
floweringe0
Direction
not reversede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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 reduction in flowering was not reversed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–887 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BA increased spur appendage number in McIntosh apple.

Material
McIntoshe0
Treatment
One BA spray at 50 mg·liter -1 at FB +22 dayse0
Outcome
number of appendages formed in spurse0
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

“One BA spray at 50 mg·liter -1 at FB +22 days to `McIntosh' trees increased the number of appendages formed in spurs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 889–1005 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BA did not influence return bloom in McIntosh apple.

Outcome
return bloome0
Direction
not influencede0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“return bloom was not influenced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1042 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–47 · show in text ↑

Gibberellic acid · phenology · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

9 papers: 4 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

Gibberellic acid · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

33 papers: 23 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

29 papers more in this group

See all 33 papers →

N-benzyladenine · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

75 papers: 57 positive, 18 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

71 papers more in this group

See all 75 papers →

application · phenology · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 10 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

application · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

107 papers: 76 positive, 31 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 76 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 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.