Paper · 2016 · Trends in Horticultural Research

Performance of Peach Trees cv. Florida Prince under Different Foliar Concentrations of NPK-humate in Presence or Absence of Adjuvants

A.M. Shalan; M.S. El-Boray; Z.M. Khouri

4
claims
6
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Background: The experimental trial was consummated throughout two successive seasons (2014 and 2015) at a commercial orchard at El-Khatatba city, Monifia Governorate, Egypt. It intended to find out the possibility of enhancing Florida prince peach trees productivity under local condition in the newly reclaimed lands by using NPK-humate. Materials and Methods: The NPK-humate in presence or absence of adjuvants (methanol and glycerol) applied as foliar application four times at 2 weeks intervals from the beginning of fruit set after petal fall (18 February) during both seasons to study their effect on vegetative growth, nutrient availability, yield and fruit quality of Florida prince peach trees and the obtained data were statistically analyzed as a randomized complete design by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Data indicated that foliar applications of NPK-humate in presence of adjuvants were better than absence of it, for enhancing peach trees cv. Florida prince production. Conclusion: Specifically, the rate of NPK-humate (1.5%)+methanol (3%) showed the best significant effect on various estimated parameters under this study unless fruit firmness during both seasons. The treatment of NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3% gave the highest significant values for vegetative growth parameters which reflected positively on yield of peach trees and fruit quality.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar NPK-humate applied with adjuvants was better than without adjuvants for peach production.

Taxon
peach treesPrunus persicae1
Material
Florida princee1
Treatment
foliar applications of NPK-humate in presence of adjuvantse1
Outcome
productione1
Direction
bettere1
Comparator
absence of ite1
Setting
commercial orchard at El-Khatatba city, Monifia Governorate, Egypte0

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

e1

“foliar applications of NPK-humate in presence of adjuvants were better than absence of it, for enhancing peach trees cv. Florida prince production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–993 · show in text ↑
e0

“The experimental trial was consummated throughout two successive seasons (2014 and 2015) at a commercial orchard at El-Khatatba city, Monifia Governorate, Egypt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 12–172 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3% showed the best significant effect on the estimated parameters, except fruit firmness.

Taxon
peach treesPrunus persicae1
Treatment
NPK-humate (1.5%)+methanol (3%)e2
Outcome
various estimated parameterse2
Direction
beste2
Qualifier
unless fruit firmness during both seasonse2

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

e1

“foliar applications of NPK-humate in presence of adjuvants were better than absence of it, for enhancing peach trees cv. Florida prince production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–993 · show in text ↑
e2

“the rate of NPK-humate (1.5%)+methanol (3%) showed the best significant effect on various estimated parameters under this study unless fruit firmness during both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1021–1190 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3% gave the highest significant values for vegetative growth parameters of peach trees.

Taxon
peach treesPrunus persicae3
Treatment
NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3%e3
Outcome
vegetative growth parameterse3
Direction
higheste3

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

e3

“The treatment of NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3% gave the highest significant values for vegetative growth parameters which reflected positively on yield of peach trees and fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1385 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3% reflected positively on peach tree yield and fruit quality.

Taxon
peach treesPrunus persicae3
Treatment
NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3%e3
Outcome
yield of peach trees and fruit qualitye3
Direction
positivelye3

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

e3

“The treatment of NPK-humate at 1.5% with methanol at 3% gave the highest significant values for vegetative growth parameters which reflected positively on yield of peach trees and fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1385 · 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 →

fertilization · quality: grain · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 7 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

fertilization · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 33 positive, 3 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

application · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 31 positive, 8 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.