Abstract
Field trials were performed to investigate the effects of humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP) coupled with farmer’s practices ( FP ), addressed in single and/or split dose frames at different plant phenological stages on various vegetative, reproductive, and physiological attributes of citrus trees (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin). The results exhibited a profound response of treatments on various growth parameters (32.5% increase in plant height, 22.2% increase in fruit set branch−1, 5.25% decrease in fruit drop percentage, 89.81% increase in fruit yield (kg), etc.) of citrus trees when compared to the control (FP). Likewise, a significant positive response was observed regarding various plant physiological parameters (leaf nutrients, total chlorophyll content, etc.) and physicochemical characteristics (ascorbic acid, total sugars, etc.) of citrus fruits. This study confirmed the reproducibility of HA and MP applications to improve the yield/quality of citrus and can lead to an organically sustainable citriculture.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments raised citrus plant height 32.5% against farmer practice.
CitrusOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“32.5% increase in plant height”
e1“humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP) coupled with farmer’s practices ( FP )”
e2“compared to the control (FP)”
e3“citrus trees (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments raised fruit set per branch 22.2%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“22.2% increase in fruit set branch−1”
e1“humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP)”
e2“compared to the control (FP)”
e3“citrus trees (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments lowered fruit drop 5.25%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“5.25% decrease in fruit drop percentage”
e1“humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP)”
e2“compared to the control (FP)”
e3“citrus trees (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased fruit yield 89.81%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“89.81% increase in fruit yield (kg)”
e1“humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP)”
e2“compared to the control (FP)”
e3“citrus trees (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments had significant positive effects on leaf nutrients and chlorophyll.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a significant positive response was observed regarding various plant physiological parameters (leaf nutrients, total chlorophyll content, etc.)”
e1“humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP)”
e2“citrus trees (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments had significant positive effects on citrus fruit ascorbic acid and sugars.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a significant positive response was observed regarding various plant physiological parameters (leaf nutrients, total chlorophyll content, etc.) and physicochemical characteristics (ascorbic acid, total sugars, etc.) of citrus fruits”
e1“humic acid (HA) and multinutrient foliar fertilizer “Micro Power” (MP)”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · CitrusPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →application · physiology: pigments · CitrusPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →application · yield · CitrusPositive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →fertilization · yield · CitrusPositive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →fertilization · growth · CitrusPositive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →other · growth · CitrusResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
fertilization · physiology: pigments · CitrusResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
application · quality: sugar starch · CitrusResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.