Abstract
A completed hedgerow of cv. Arbequina and a youth vase trained orchard of cv. Picual were fertilized with foliar applications of Phosphorus (P) or Potassium (K) throughout four seasons. The orchards were located near Valdepeñas in the dry area of La Mancha (Spain). Vegetative growth, yield and oil quality were evaluated. Foliar treatments did not increase P or K leaf concentration. Most of the evaluated parameters were not significantly affected by treatments. It was observed that the P treatment increased olive growth and oil yield in both orchards and in certain seasons due to an increment in fruit number. P and K application significantly increased ‘Arbequina’ olive and oil yield in 2008 when spring was wetter than the other years. Oil quality was not modified by fertilizer treatments in the ‘Arbequina’orchard. However, oxidative stability was negatively affected by P and K treatments in ‘Picual’. Oil extraction could be negatively affected by treatments because of the increase in the water content in the fruit obtained from both orchards.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar P or K treatments did not increase P or K leaf concentration in olive.
- Taxon
- olive
Olea europaeat0 - Treatment
- Foliar treatmentse1
- Outcome
- P or K leaf concentratione1
- Direction
- did not increasee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e1“Foliar treatments did not increase P or K leaf concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Most evaluated olive parameters were not significantly affected by the treatments.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- treatmentse2
- Outcome
- evaluated parameterse2
- Direction
- not significantly affectede2
- Qualifier
- Most ofe2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e2“Most of the evaluated parameters were not significantly affected by treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
P treatment increased olive growth in both orchards and in certain seasons.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- P treatmente3
- Outcome
- olive growthe3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- in certain seasonse3
- Setting
- both orchardse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e3“It was observed that the P treatment increased olive growth and oil yield in both orchards and in certain seasons due to an increment in fruit number”
Claim · model-written summary
P treatment increased olive oil yield in both orchards and in certain seasons.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- P treatmente3
- Outcome
- oil yielde3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- in certain seasonse3
- Setting
- both orchardse3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e3“It was observed that the P treatment increased olive growth and oil yield in both orchards and in certain seasons due to an increment in fruit number”
Claim · model-written summary
The P treatment increase in olive growth and oil yield is attributed to more fruits.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Outcome
- oil yielde3
- Qualifier
- due to an increment in fruit numbere3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e3“It was observed that the P treatment increased olive growth and oil yield in both orchards and in certain seasons due to an increment in fruit number”
Claim · model-written summary
P and K application significantly increased olive and oil yield of Arbequina in 2008, when spring was wetter.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- Arbequinae4
- Treatment
- P and K applicatione4
- Outcome
- olive and oil yielde4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Qualifier
- in 2008 when spring was wetter than the other yearse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e4“P and K application significantly increased ‘Arbequina’ olive and oil yield in 2008 when spring was wetter than the other years”
Claim · model-written summary
Oil quality of Arbequina was not modified by fertilizer treatments.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- Arbequinae5
- Treatment
- fertilizer treatmentse5
- Outcome
- Oil qualitye5
- Direction
- not modifiede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e5“Oil quality was not modified by fertilizer treatments in the ‘Arbequina’orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxidative stability of Picual oil was negatively affected by P and K treatments.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Material
- Picuale6
- Treatment
- P and K treatmentse6
- Outcome
- oxidative stabilitye6
- Direction
- negatively affectede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e6“However, oxidative stability was negatively affected by P and K treatments in ‘Picual’”
Claim · model-written summary
Oil extraction could be negatively affected by treatments because of higher fruit water content.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- treatmentse7
- Outcome
- Oil extractione7
- Qualifier
- increase in the water content in the fruite7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“olive trees”
e7“Oil extraction could be negatively affected by treatments because of the increase in the water content in the fruit obtained from both orchards”
The same questions in other papers
potassium · quality: oil · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
phosphorus · growth · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · molecular: metabolites · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →fertilization · quality: oil · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.