Abstract
This study was carried out during two successive seasons of 2013 and 2014, to investigate the effect of alternative dormancy breaking agents on bud break, growth, yield and fruit characteristics of “Le-Cont” pear cultivar. The following treatments were investigated at the dormant bud stage; 2% Garlic extract (GE) + 4% Summer oil; 4% GE + 4% (summer oil); 2% hydrogen cyanamide (H2CN2) + 4% (summer oil); 4% H2CN2 + 4% (summer oil); 2 % urea phosphite (CO(NH2)2.H3PO3) + 4% (summer oil); 4 % (urea phosphite) + 4% (summer oil); 4% Summer oil alone. The effects of all treatments were compared with the control (untreated trees). It is noticed that the beginning of flowering to all treatments resulted in early flowering and shorter than the control. All treatments increased both bud burst percentage and floral bud percentage; especially garlic extracts at the highest concentration. Garlic extract and urea phosphite concentration gave the highest number of fruits/tree and yield kg/tree also fruit weight, size and their dimensions have been affected. Hydrogen cyanamide 4 % and urea phosphite 2 % gave the softener fruits. In addition, all treatments was affected to increase TSS, total and reducing sugars than control treatment. Hormonal changes during the rest period in flower buds of Le-Conte pear were determined in the 2nd season of the study. The highest levels of IAA and GA3 contents were found to be in endo-dormancy (on the end of Feb.), while Abscisic acid showed the highest values during the 1st deep dormancy (on the end of Dec.). It was a remarkable increases in IAA and GA3 occurred at bud swelling stage. Meanwhile, the lowest level of ABA was observed at the same stage.
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
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments advanced and shortened flowering versus control.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- beginning of floweringe0
- Direction
- earlye0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“the beginning of flowering to all treatments resulted in early flowering and shorter than the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments increased bud burst and floral bud percentages, especially concentrated garlic extract.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- bud burst percentage and floral bud percentagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control (untreated trees)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“All treatments increased both bud burst percentage and floral bud percentage; especially garlic extracts at the highest concentration.”
e1“The effects of all treatments were compared with the control (untreated trees).”
Claim · model-written summary
Garlic extract and urea phosphite gave the highest fruits per tree and yield.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- Garlic extract and urea phosphite concentratione0
- Outcome
- number of fruits/tree and yield kg/treee0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“Garlic extract and urea phosphite concentration gave the highest number of fruits/tree and yield kg/tree also fruit weight, size and their dimensions have been affected.”
Claim · model-written summary
Garlic extract and urea phosphite affected fruit weight, size and dimensions.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- Garlic extract and urea phosphite concentratione0
- Outcome
- fruit weight, size and their dimensionse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“Garlic extract and urea phosphite concentration gave the highest number of fruits/tree and yield kg/tree also fruit weight, size and their dimensions have been affected.”
Claim · model-written summary
Hydrogen cyanamide 4 % produced the softest fruit.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- Hydrogen cyanamide 4 %e0
- Outcome
- softener fruitse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“Hydrogen cyanamide 4 % and urea phosphite 2 % gave the softener fruits.”
Claim · model-written summary
Urea phosphite 2 % produced softer fruit.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- urea phosphite 2 %e0
- Outcome
- softener fruitse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“Hydrogen cyanamide 4 % and urea phosphite 2 % gave the softener fruits.”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments increased TSS and total and reducing sugars versus control.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- TSS, total and reducing sugarse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“all treatments was affected to increase TSS, total and reducing sugars than control treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
IAA and GA3 were highest at endo-dormancy.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The highest levels of IAA and GA3 contents were found to be in endo-dormancy (on the end of Feb.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Abscisic acid peaked during first deep dormancy.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Organ / stage
- 1st deep dormancye0
- Outcome
- Abscisic acide0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“Abscisic acid showed the highest values during the 1st deep dormancy (on the end of Dec.).”
Claim · model-written summary
IAA and GA3 rose at bud swelling.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Organ / stage
- bud swelling stagee0
- Outcome
- IAA and GA3e0
- Direction
- increasese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“It was a remarkable increases in IAA and GA3 occurred at bud swelling stage.”
Claim · model-written summary
ABA was lowest at bud swelling.
- Taxon
- Pear
Pyrus communist0 - Organ / stage
- bud swelling stagee1
- Outcome
- ABAe0
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0““Le-Cont” Pear Cultivar”
e0“the lowest level of ABA was observed at the same stage.”
e1“bud swelling stage”
The same questions in other papers
Allium sativum · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
nitrogen · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →botanical · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.