Paper · 2014 · Egyptian Journal of Horticulture

Effect of calcium Nitrate and Gibberellic Acid Foliar Sprays on Fruiting and Fruit Quality of “Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.

E Mikhail; K Goargios; G Beltrn; et al.

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

THIS WORK was implemented to study the impact of foliar applications of calcium nitrate at 3% provided with (Gibberellic acid) at 10 ppm and 20 ppm at full bloom (mid-April), at fruit set stage (mid-May) and at pit hardening stage on ‘Manzanillo’ and ‘Dolce’ olive cvs during 2012 and 2013 seasons. This experiment was carried out at an olive private farm (9 years old) at Cairo Alexandria desert road (90 kilometer). The olive trees were planted at 4 x 6 m and irrigated using drip irrigation system. In olives, yield together with fruit quality determinations crop value and farmer profits. Yield depends on the number of fruits cropped per tree and their average weight fruit and flesh weight and oil content are the most important determents of on-tree fruit quality. Calcium play significant roles in fruit set, fruit growth and maturation. Calcium nitrate at 3 % plus GA3 at 10 and 20 ppm were applied as foliar sprays in three stages, mid April, mid May and during pit hardening. All, treatments have significantly reduced percentage of fruit drop and increased yield (kg/tree). Fruit yield had pronounced increases over the control with mid May treatment to score 47.5 and 57.6 % in the first season, 54.5 and 70.9 % in the second one, respectively. Best results were brought about when calcium nitrate at 3 % plus GA3 at 10 and 20 ppm were applied in mid May followed by treatments during pit hardening and mid April, respectively. Such treatments have also had significant impacts on fruit, seed and flesh weight.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The foliar treatments reduced percentage of fruit drop in the olive cultivars.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
percentage of fruit drope0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All, treatments have significantly reduced percentage of fruit drop and increased yield (kg/tree).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1085 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The foliar treatments increased yield (kg/tree) in the olive cultivars.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
yield (kg/tree)e0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All, treatments have significantly reduced percentage of fruit drop and increased yield (kg/tree).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1085 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mid May foliar treatment increased olive fruit yield by 47.5 in the first season at GA3 10 ppm.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
mid May treatmente0
Outcome
Fruit yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
47.5e0
Qualifier
first seasone0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yield had pronounced increases over the control with mid May treatment to score 47.5 and 57.6 % in the first season, 54.5 and 70.9 % in the second one, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mid May foliar treatment increased olive fruit yield by 57.6 % in the first season at GA3 20 ppm.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
mid May treatmente0
Outcome
Fruit yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
57.6 %e0
Qualifier
first seasone0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yield had pronounced increases over the control with mid May treatment to score 47.5 and 57.6 % in the first season, 54.5 and 70.9 % in the second one, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mid May foliar treatment increased olive fruit yield by 54.5 in the second one at GA3 10 ppm.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
mid May treatmente0
Outcome
Fruit yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
54.5e0
Qualifier
second onee0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yield had pronounced increases over the control with mid May treatment to score 47.5 and 57.6 % in the first season, 54.5 and 70.9 % in the second one, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mid May foliar treatment increased olive fruit yield by 70.9 % in the second one at GA3 20 ppm.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
mid May treatmente0
Outcome
Fruit yielde0
Direction
increasese0
Value
70.9 %e0
Qualifier
second onee0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yield had pronounced increases over the control with mid May treatment to score 47.5 and 57.6 % in the first season, 54.5 and 70.9 % in the second one, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1086–1257 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mid May treatment gave the best olive results, followed by pit hardening and mid April applications.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
calcium nitrate at 3 % plus GA3 at 10 and 20 ppme0
Outcome
Best resultse0
Qualifier
mid May followed by treatments during pit hardening and mid Aprile0

Verbatim

e0

“Best results were brought about when calcium nitrate at 3 % plus GA3 at 10 and 20 ppm were applied in mid May followed by treatments during pit hardening and mid April, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1258–1440 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatments significantly affected olive fruit, seed and flesh weight.

Taxon
“Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.t0
Treatment
Such treatmentse0
Outcome
fruit, seed and flesh weighte0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Such treatments have also had significant impacts on fruit, seed and flesh weight.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1441–1523 · show in text ↑
t0

““Manzanillo” and “Dolce” Olive Cvs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–129 · show in text ↑