Abstract
In this paper the effect of organic matter supply as an alternative to mineral fertilization in a commercial peach orchard is investigated through the comparison of the following treatments: 1. unfertilised control; 2. mineral fertilization; 3. compost at planting; 4. cow manure at planting; 5. compost (5 t DW ha-1 year-1) and 6. compost (10 t DW ha-1 year-1). Nitrate-N concentration, microbial biomass, root growth, leaf and fruit nutrient concentrations were evaluated from 2001 (planting) to 2003 (beginning of bearing stage). The organic fertilization increased soil organic matter, total N and nitrate-N, but did not affect the nutritional status of the trees. New root production was observed from May to June and white absorbing roots had a life span of several month, reaching the end of the season
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
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilization increased soil organic matter, total N and nitrate-N in a commercial peach orchard compared with mineral fertilization.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- organic fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter, total N and nitrate-Ne0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizatione1
- Setting
- commercial peach orchardt0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The organic fertilization increased soil organic matter, total N and nitrate-N”
e1“organic matter supply as an alternative to mineral fertilization”
t0“COMMERCIAL PEACH ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilization did not affect the nutritional status of peach trees.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- organic fertilizatione0
- Outcome
- nutritional status of the treese2
- Direction
- did not affecte2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The organic fertilization increased soil organic matter, total N and nitrate-N”
e2“but did not affect the nutritional status of the trees”
t0“COMMERCIAL PEACH ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
New root production in the peach orchard was observed from May to June.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- New root productione3
- Qualifier
- from May to Junee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“New root production was observed from May to June”
t0“COMMERCIAL PEACH ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
White absorbing roots of peach had a life span of several months.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Organ / stage
- white absorbing rootse4
- Outcome
- life spane4
- Value
- several monthe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“white absorbing roots had a life span of several month”
t0“COMMERCIAL PEACH ORCHARD”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · nutrient: content · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 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.