Paper · 2017 · JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN AGRICULTURE

EFFECTS OF FOLIAR SPRAYING WITH SALICYLIC ACID ON SOME QUANTITY AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF PEAR FRUITS

Ikbal Muhammed Gharib Tahir; Tahir A. Ahmed; Nameer N. Fadhil

11
claims
28
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

A factorial experiment with randomized complete block design carried out in Erbil governorate, Iraq during 2015 and 2016 seasons on pear (Pyrus Communis L.) Spadona and Compote cvs. to investigate the effects of spraying trees with (0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5%) salicylic acid (SA) on some fruits quantity and quality characteristics. The results show that Compote fruits had the highest weight and firmness significantly compared to Spadona fruits in both seasons, whereas Spadona variety records the highest total acidity. Fruits of Compote variety records higher chlorophyll a , chlorophyll b and total carotenoids content significantly compared to Spadona variety in 2015, in the opposite of the results of 2016 in respect to chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b. Spraying trees with SA increased fruit weight and firmness compare to control treatment for both seasons, and total acidity in 2015 and total sugars in 2016, whereas the differences were not significant in 2016 and 2015 for the last two properties. In 2015 spraying 1.5% SA increased each of chlorophyll a and b content significantly compared to other concentrations, whereas significant decrease in total carotenoids content observed with increasing SA concentration, whereas the differences between SA treatments were not significant in 2016 in respect to chlorophyll a, b and total carotenoids.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Compote pear fruit had greater weight and firmness than Spadona in both seasons.

Material
Compotee0
Outcome
weight and firmnesse0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
both seasonse0
Comparator
Spadonae0

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

“Compote fruits had the highest weight and firmness significantly compared to Spadona fruits in both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 350–457 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spadona pear fruit had the highest total acidity.

Material
Spadonae0
Outcome
total aciditye0
Direction
higheste0

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

“Spadona variety records the highest total acidity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 467–517 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Compote fruit had higher chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids than Spadona in 2015.

Material
Compotee0
Outcome
chlorophyll a , chlorophyll b and total carotenoids contente0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
2015e0
Comparator
Spadonae0

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

“Fruits of Compote variety records higher chlorophyll a , chlorophyll b and total carotenoids content significantly compared to Spadona variety in 2015”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–668 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The cultivar pattern for chlorophyll a and b was reversed in 2016.

Material
Compotee1
Outcome
chlorophyll a and chlorophyll be0
Direction
oppositee0
Qualifier
2016e0
Comparator
Spadonae1

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

“in the opposite of the results of 2016 in respect to chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 670–755 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fruits of Compote variety records higher chlorophyll a , chlorophyll b and total carotenoids content significantly compared to Spadona variety in 2015”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–668 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salicylic acid spraying increased pear fruit weight and firmness versus control in both seasons.

Treatment
Spraying trees with SAe0
Outcome
fruit weight and firmnesse0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
both seasonse0
Comparator
control treatmente0

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

“Spraying trees with SA increased fruit weight and firmness compare to control treatment for both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–860 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salicylic acid spraying increased pear fruit total acidity in 2015.

Treatment
Spraying trees with SAe1
Outcome
total aciditye0
Direction
increasede1
Qualifier
2015e0
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

“and total acidity in 2015 and total sugars in 2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–912 · show in text ↑
e1

“Spraying trees with SA increased fruit weight and firmness compare to control treatment for both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–860 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salicylic acid spraying increased pear fruit total sugars in 2016.

Treatment
Spraying trees with SAe1
Outcome
total sugarse0
Direction
increasede1
Qualifier
2016e0
Comparator
control treatmente1

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

“and total acidity in 2015 and total sugars in 2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–912 · show in text ↑
e1

“Spraying trees with SA increased fruit weight and firmness compare to control treatment for both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–860 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Salicylic acid effects on total acidity in 2016 and sugars in 2015 were not significant.

Treatment
Spraying trees with SAe2
Outcome
total aciditye1
Direction
not significante0
Qualifier
2016 and 2015e0
Comparator
control treatmente2

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

“whereas the differences were not significant in 2016 and 2015 for the last two properties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 914–1004 · show in text ↑
e1

“and total acidity in 2015 and total sugars in 2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 862–912 · show in text ↑
e2

“Spraying trees with SA increased fruit weight and firmness compare to control treatment for both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 756–860 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 1.5% salicylic acid treatment increased pear fruit chlorophyll a and b in 2015 versus other concentrations.

Treatment
spraying 1.5% SAe0
Outcome
chlorophyll a and b contente0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
2015e0
Comparator
other concentrationse0

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

“In 2015 spraying 1.5% SA increased each of chlorophyll a and b content significantly compared to other concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1122 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing salicylic acid concentration significantly decreased pear fruit carotenoids in 2015.

Treatment
increasing SA concentratione0
Outcome
total carotenoids contente0
Direction
decreasee0
Qualifier
2015e1

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

“significant decrease in total carotenoids content observed with increasing SA concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1223 · show in text ↑
e1

“In 2015 spraying 1.5% SA increased each of chlorophyll a and b content significantly compared to other concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1122 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Salicylic acid treatments did not differ significantly in pear fruit chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b or carotenoids in 2016.

Treatment
SA treatmentse0
Outcome
chlorophyll a, b and total carotenoidse0
Direction
not significante0
Qualifier
2016e0

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

“the differences between SA treatments were not significant in 2016 in respect to chlorophyll a, b and total carotenoids.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1353 · show in text ↑
t0

“PEAR FRUITS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–106 · show in text ↑

salicylic acid · quality: sugar starch · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

salicylic acid · physiology: pigments · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

salicylic acid · quality: postharvest · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

application · quality: postharvest · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

application · quality: sugar starch · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

application · physiology: pigments · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.