Paper · 2001 · Acta Horticulturae

SINGLE LEAF AND WHOLE CANOPY GAS EXCHANGE OF PEAR AS AFFECTED BY GRAFT INCOMPATIBILITY

L. Corelli-Grapadelli; S. Musacchi; E. Magnanini

4
claims
11
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Leaf and whole-canopy gas exchange of Beurré Hardy and Beurré Bosc trees, either selfrooted or grafted on clonal quince rootstocks (BA29 and MC), and a common seedling were measured to study the effect of varying degrees of graft incompatibility on tree gas exchange. Whole-canopy gas exchange was expressed in terms of the energy absorbed by the canopy, which was measured at hour intervals using a custom-built sensor. Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis were not affected by cultivar, but they were reduced by the dwarfing quince rootstock, MC. Similar results were obtained for daily patterns of whole-canopy photosynthesis, measured in early July and August. The ratio of leaf net photosynthesis to light intercepted per tree followed the same pattern as whole-canopy photosynthesis.

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 resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis did not differ by cultivar.

Treatment
cultivare0
Outcome
Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesise0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis were not affected by cultivar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 423–516 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dwarfing quince rootstock MC reduced leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis.

Treatment
dwarfing quince rootstock, MCe0
Outcome
Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesise0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
selfrootede1

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Leaf transpiration, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis were not affected by cultivar, but they were reduced by the dwarfing quince rootstock, MC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 423–576 · show in text ↑
e1

“either selfrooted or grafted on clonal quince rootstocks (BA29 and MC), and a common seedling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 76–169 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–49 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dwarfing quince rootstock MC similarly reduced daily whole canopy photosynthesis in early July and August.

Treatment
dwarfing quince rootstock, MCe1
Outcome
whole-canopy photosynthesise0
Direction
reducede1
Qualifier
early July and Auguste0
Comparator
selfrootede2

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Similar results were obtained for daily patterns of whole-canopy photosynthesis, measured in early July and August”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–692 · show in text ↑
e1

“they were reduced by the dwarfing quince rootstock, MC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 522–576 · show in text ↑
e2

“either selfrooted or grafted on clonal quince rootstocks (BA29 and MC), and a common seedling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 76–169 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–49 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The ratio of leaf net photosynthesis to intercepted light followed the pattern of whole canopy photosynthesis.

Outcome
ratio of leaf net photosynthesis to light intercepted per treee0
Direction
same patterne0
Comparator
whole-canopy photosynthesise0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The ratio of leaf net photosynthesis to light intercepted per tree followed the same pattern as whole-canopy photosynthesis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–817 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–49 · show in text ↑

grafting · physiology: photosynthesis · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.