Paper · 2016 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Integrated nutrient management and mulching for higher productivity of spur type apple (Malus domestica) cultivars

BISWAJIT DAS; HAREKRISHNA; J K RANJAN; et al.

9
claims
26
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Integrated nutrient combination comprising NPK sources from organic manures (FYM and vermicompost) and inorganic sources along with mulching (leaf mould and black polyethylene) were applied on apple (Malus domestica Borkh) cv. Starkrimson planted on high density system. The objective was to supplement NPK requirement by applying sufficient quantity of organic manures, thereby, minimizing the inorganic fertilizer requirement. Better result was obtained in treatment comprising leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrients: 50 kg/tree FYM + 10 kg/tree vermicompost + 50 g/tree N + 75 g/tree P2O5 + 250 g/tree K2O in 5th year; 60 kg/tree FYM + 13 kg/tree vermicompost + 30 g/tree N + 80 g/tree P2O5 + 225 g/tree K2O in 6th year; 70 kg/tree FYM + 16 kg/tree vermicompost + 10 g/tree N + 85 g/tree P2O5 + 250 g/tree K2O in 7th year and 70 kg/tree FYM + 19 kg/tree vermicompost + 165 g/tree N + 178 g/tree P2O5 + 548 g/tree K2O in both 8th and 9th year. In the 8th and 9th year, this treatment resulted comparatively higher fruit yield (31.8 and 30.6 kg/tree, respectively) and productivity (50.8 and 53.3 MT/ha, respectively) with fruit weight 200.4 and 202.4 g and diameter 8.4 and 8.2 cm, respectively. Whereas, in recommended dose, in 8th and 9th year, 27.6 and 25.6 kg/tree yield and 44.2 and 40.9 MT/ha productivity were recorded, respectively. Reduction of FYM quantity by 50% and increasing the vermicompost dose also supplemented considerable amount of NPK requirement from inorganic sources and resulted better plant growth and yield.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrient treatment gave comparatively higher fruit yield of 31.8 kg/tree in year 8.

Treatment
leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrientse1
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
31.8e0
Qualifier
8the0
Comparator
recommended dosee2

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“In the 8th and 9th year, this treatment resulted comparatively higher fruit yield (31.8 and 30.6 kg/tree, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1068 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatment comprising leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–521 · show in text ↑
e2

“Whereas, in recommended dose, in 8th and 9th year, 27.6 and 25.6 kg/tree yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1279 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave comparatively higher fruit yield of 30.6 kg/tree in year 9.

Treatment
leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrientse1
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
30.6 kg/treee0
Qualifier
9the0
Comparator
recommended dosee2

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“In the 8th and 9th year, this treatment resulted comparatively higher fruit yield (31.8 and 30.6 kg/tree, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1068 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatment comprising leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–521 · show in text ↑
e2

“Whereas, in recommended dose, in 8th and 9th year, 27.6 and 25.6 kg/tree yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1279 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave comparatively higher productivity of 50.8 MT/ha in year 8.

Treatment
leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrientse1
Outcome
productivitye0
Value
50.8e0
Comparator
recommended dosee2

Not reportedDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“productivity (50.8 and 53.3 MT/ha, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1121 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatment comprising leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–521 · show in text ↑
e2

“Whereas, in recommended dose, in 8th and 9th year, 27.6 and 25.6 kg/tree yield and 44.2 and 40.9 MT/ha productivity were recorded, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1345 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment gave comparatively higher productivity of 53.3 MT/ha in year 9.

Treatment
leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrientse1
Outcome
productivitye0
Value
53.3 MT/hae0
Comparator
recommended dosee2

Not reportedDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“productivity (50.8 and 53.3 MT/ha, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1121 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatment comprising leaf mould mulch and integrated nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–521 · show in text ↑
e2

“Whereas, in recommended dose, in 8th and 9th year, 27.6 and 25.6 kg/tree yield and 44.2 and 40.9 MT/ha productivity were recorded, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1201–1345 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment produced fruit weight of 200.4 g in year 8.

Outcome
fruit weighte0
Value
200.4e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“with fruit weight 200.4 and 202.4 g and diameter 8.4 and 8.2 cm, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatment produced fruit weight of 202.4 g in year 9.

Outcome
fruit weighte0
Value
202.4 ge0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“with fruit weight 200.4 and 202.4 g and diameter 8.4 and 8.2 cm, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1122–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit diameter was 8.4 cm in year 8 under the treatment.

Outcome
diametere0
Value
8.4e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“diameter 8.4 and 8.2 cm, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1162–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit diameter was 8.2 cm in year 9 under the treatment.

Outcome
diametere0
Value
8.2 cme0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“diameter 8.4 and 8.2 cm, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1162–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reducing FYM by 50% while raising vermicompost supplied substantial NPK and improved plant growth and yield.

Treatment
Reduction of FYM quantity by 50% and increasing the vermicompost dosee0
Outcome
plant growth and yielde0
Direction
bettere0
Value
50%e0

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

“Reduction of FYM quantity by 50% and increasing the vermicompost dose also supplemented considerable amount of NPK requirement from inorganic sources and resulted better plant growth and yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1346–1539 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–86 · show in text ↑

mulching · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

51 papers: 41 positive, 10 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. no effect

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 papers →

fertilization · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

178 papers: 150 positive, 28 negative or no effect

149 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

174 papers more in this group

See all 178 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.