Abstract
We are testing control tactics for apple replant disease (ARD) complex, a worldwide problem for fruit growers that is attributed to various biotic and abiotic soil factors. In Nov. 2001, “Empire” apple trees on five rootstocks (M.26, M.7, G.16, CG.6210, and G.30) were planted into four preplant soil treatments—commercial compost at 492 kg/ha soil-incorporated and 492 kg·ha -1 surface-applied), soil fumigation with Telone C-17 (400 L·ha -1 of 1,3-dichloropropene + chloropicrin injected at 30 cm depth five weeks prior to replanting), compost plus fumigant combination, and untreated controls—at an old orchard site in Ithaca, N.Y. Trees were replanted in rows perpendicular to, and either in or out of, previous orchard rows. Irrigation was applied as needed, and N-P-K fertilizer was applied in 2001 to all non-compost treatments to compensate for nutrients in the compost treatment. After two growing seasons, the rootstock factor has contributed most to tree-growth differences. CG.6210 rootstock supported greater growth in trunk diameter, central leader height, and lateral shoot growth ( P < 0.05), regardless of preplant soil treatments and replant position. Trees on M.26 grew least over a two year period. Replant growth was greater in old grass lanes than in old tree rows, despite higher root-lesion nematode populations in previous grass lanes. Growth responses to preplant soil fumigation were negligible. Preplant compost did not increase tree growth during year one, but did increase lateral branch growth in year two. Results thus far suggest that replanting apple trees out of the old tree-row locations, and using ARD tolerant rootstocks such as CG.6210, may be more effective than soil fumigation for control of ARD in some old orchard sites.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock explained most tree growth differences after two seasons.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Outcome
- tree-growth differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“After two growing seasons, the rootstock factor has contributed most to tree-growth differences.”
Claim · model-written summary
CG.6210 increased trunk diameter, leader height and lateral shoot growth.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- CG.6210e0
- Outcome
- growth in trunk diameter, central leader height, and lateral shoot growthe0
- Direction
- greatere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“CG.6210 rootstock supported greater growth in trunk diameter, central leader height, and lateral shoot growth ( P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
M.26 trees grew least over two years.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- M.26e0
- Outcome
- grew leaste0
- Direction
- leaste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“Trees on M.26 grew least over a two year period.”
Claim · model-written summary
Replant growth was greater in old grass lanes than old tree rows.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- Replant growthe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- old tree rowse0
- Setting
- old grass lanese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“Replant growth was greater in old grass lanes than in old tree rows”
Claim · model-written summary
Old grass lanes had higher root lesion nematode populations.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Interactor
- root-lesion nematodee0pathogen
- Outcome
- root-lesion nematode populationse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Setting
- previous grass lanese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“higher root-lesion nematode populations in previous grass lanes”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil fumigation had negligible growth effect.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- preplant soil fumigatione0
- Outcome
- Growth responsese0
- Direction
- negligiblee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“Growth responses to preplant soil fumigation were negligible.”
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant compost did not increase first year tree growth.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Preplant composte0
- Outcome
- tree growthe0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
- Qualifier
- during year onee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“Preplant compost did not increase tree growth during year one”
Claim · model-written summary
Preplant compost increased lateral branch growth in year two.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Preplant composte0
- Outcome
- lateral branch growthe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- in year twoe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“Preplant compost did not increase tree growth during year one, but did increase lateral branch growth in year two.”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend replanting outside former tree rows and using CG.6210 rootstocks.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- replanting apple trees out of the old tree-row locations, and using ARD tolerant rootstocks such as CG.6210e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple”
e0“replanting apple trees out of the old tree-row locations, and using ARD tolerant rootstocks such as CG.6210, may be more effective than soil fumigation for control of ARD in some old orchard sites.”
The same questions in other papers
solarization · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →fertilization · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
89 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
102 papers more in this group
See all 106 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.