Abstract
The effects of tree spacing (5x2m, 5x2.5m, 5x3m, 5x3.5m and 5x4m) and pruning (8 buds/cane, 6 buds/cane and 4 buds/cane) on vegetative growth, physiological parameters, fruit yield and quality were studied in fig (Ficus carica L.) cv. Deanna in the 3rd and 4th year of its growth during the period 2010-12. It was observed that with increase in tree spacing, growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internode length, tree-spread, tree height and tree circumference, along with fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels. Increase in pruning level from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/cane resulted in increased leaf number, shoot length and internode length. Yield characters, viz., fruit number/tree, fruit weight/tree, fruit number/hectare and fruit weight/hectare were marginally influenced by pruning. However, interaction effects of pruning and spacing were found to be non-significant. Consistently declining trends in photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance, along with increase in leaf water potential value were observed with increase in spacing. Effects of spacing were more conspicuous than those of pruning. Best results for maintenance of vigour and fruit yield were observed under a spacing of 5x2m or 5x2.5m, and 4 buds/cane pruning. Although there was reduction in average fruit size under closer spacing when compared to wide spacing, fruit quality attributes like TSS and acidity were not affected by various treatments. Effects of closer spacing on growth and yield parameters were more pronounced in the 3rd year as compared to the 4th year, showing better response to treatments in young trees. Fruit yield calculated on per hectare basis showed highest fruit number of 116500-133750 and 274500-299500, and fruit weight of 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha, respectively, during the 3rdand 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing tree spacing reduced growth parameters of fig trees under different pruning levels.
- Taxon
- Ficus carica
_(Ficus_carica)_-_Cagliari%2C_Italy_2024-03-26.jpg?width=60)
Ficus caricat0 - Material
- Deannat0
- Treatment
- tree spacinge1
- Outcome
- growth parameterse1
- Direction
- declinede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_(Ficus_carica)_-_Cagliari%2C_Italy_2024-03-26.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e1“It was observed that with increase in tree spacing, growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internode length, tree-spread, tree height and tree circumference, along with fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing tree spacing reduced fruit yield of fig trees.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- tree spacinge1
- Outcome
- fruit yielde1
- Direction
- declinede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e1“It was observed that with increase in tree spacing, growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internode length, tree-spread, tree height and tree circumference, along with fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing pruning from 8 to 4 buds per cane increased leaf number, shoot length and internode length.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- Increase in pruning level from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/canee2
- Outcome
- leaf number, shoot length and internode lengthe2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Comparator
- 8 buds/canee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e2“Increase in pruning level from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/cane resulted in increased leaf number, shoot length and internode length”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning marginally influenced fruit number and fruit weight per tree and per hectare.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- pruninge3
- Outcome
- Yield characterse3
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e3“Yield characters, viz., fruit number/tree, fruit weight/tree, fruit number/hectare and fruit weight/hectare were marginally influenced by pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction effects of pruning and spacing were not significant.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Outcome
- interaction effects of pruning and spacinge4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e4“However, interaction effects of pruning and spacing were found to be non-significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing consistently declined photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- increase in spacinge5
- Outcome
- photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductancee5
- Direction
- declininge5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e5“Consistently declining trends in photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance, along with increase in leaf water potential value were observed with increase in spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing increased leaf water potential value.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- increase in spacinge5
- Outcome
- leaf water potential valuee5
- Direction
- increasee5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e5“Consistently declining trends in photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance, along with increase in leaf water potential value were observed with increase in spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit quality attributes TSS and acidity were not affected by the treatments.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Outcome
- TSS and aciditye6
- Qualifier
- not affected by various treatmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e6“fruit quality attributes like TSS and acidity were not affected by various treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Closer spacing reduced average fruit size compared with wide spacing.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- closer spacinge7
- Outcome
- average fruit sizee7
- Direction
- reductione7
- Comparator
- wide spacinge7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e7“Although there was reduction in average fruit size under closer spacing when compared to wide spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
Effects of closer spacing on growth and yield parameters were more pronounced in the 3rd year than in the 4th year.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- closer spacinge1
- Outcome
- growth and yield parameterse1
- Qualifier
- more pronounced in the 3rd year as compared to the 4th yeare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e1“Effects of closer spacing on growth and yield parameters were more pronounced in the 3rd year as compared to the 4th year”
Claim · model-written summary
A spacing of 5x2m or 5x2.5m with 4 buds/cane pruning gave the best maintenance of vigour and fruit yield.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- a spacing of 5x2m or 5x2.5m, and 4 buds/cane pruninge1
- Outcome
- maintenance of vigour and fruit yielde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e1“Best results for maintenance of vigour and fruit yield were observed under a spacing of 5x2m or 5x2.5m, and 4 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit number per hectare reached 116500-133750 and 274500-299500 under closer spacing of 5x2m with 4 buds/cane pruning.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruninge2
- Outcome
- fruit numbere1
- Value
- 116500-133750 and 274500-299500e1
- Qualifier
- per hectare basise1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e1“Fruit yield calculated on per hectare basis showed highest fruit number of 116500-133750 and 274500-299500”
e2“and fruit weight of 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha, respectively, during the 3rdand 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit weight per hectare reached 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha under closer spacing of 5x2m with 4 buds/cane pruning.
- Taxon
- Ficus caricaFicus caricat0
- Treatment
- closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruninge1
- Outcome
- fruit weighte1
- Value
- 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cv. Deanna Fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e1“and fruit weight of 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha, respectively, during the 3rdand 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
pruning · yield · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →pruning · growth · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →density · growth · Ficus carica (common fig)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
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.