Paper · 2022 · Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi

The Effect of Farm Manure on Yield and Some Soil Properties in a Pear Garden in Yozgat

Aysen KOÇ; Tuğrul YAKUPOĞLU

9
claims
23
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of farm manure applied at two doses on some chemical and physical properties of the soil. In addition, it was conducted to determine the relationships between the contribution of improved soil health and quality to the development of pear trees. For this purpose, farmyard manure of Etruşka variety grafted on a 6-year-old OHF 333 rootstock planted in Gedikhasanlı Research and Application Center was applied to the crown projection of the trees in three different doses (control, half dose: 5 kg tree-1 and full dose: 10 kg tree-1). At the end of the study, while there was no statistical difference between applications in 2018 and 2019 measurements in tree height measurements, 5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applications affected 2020 measurements significantly. When the number of shoots was examined, there was no statistical difference in the year of application (2018) and one year after (2019), while in 2020, 5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applications were higher than control. With the application of 10 kg farm manure per tree, the organic matter content of the soil was increased from "low" level (1.02%) to "medium" level (3.03%) at the end of the first year. A similar situation was valid for 5 kg tree-1 dose application, although the increase in the amount of organic matter was lower (2.45%). At the end of the second year, while the level of organic matter in soils where high dose application was applied was preserved as "medium" (2.14%), the low dose application lost its effectiveness and the level of organic matter fell back to the "low" class (1.45%). The most effective application reducing bulk density and penetration resistance was 10 kg tree-1 dose.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Manure doses did not significantly alter pear tree height in 2018 or 2019.

Treatment
applicationse0
Outcome
tree height measurementse0
Direction
no statistical differencee0
Qualifier
2018 and 2019e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no statistical difference between applications in 2018 and 2019 measurements in tree height measurements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 614–728 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Both 5 and 10 kg per tree manure doses significantly affected pear height in 2020.

Treatment
5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applicationse0
Outcome
tree height measurementse1
Qualifier
2020e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applications affected 2020 measurements significantly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 730–824 · show in text ↑
e1

“tree height measurements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–728 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Shoot number showed no statistical difference in 2018 or 2019.

Treatment
farm manure applicationse1
Outcome
number of shootse2
Direction
no statistical differencee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was no statistical difference in the year of application (2018) and one year after (2019)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 866–961 · show in text ↑
e1

“5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applications were higher than control. With the application of 10 kg farm manure per tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 978–1108 · show in text ↑
e2

“the number of shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 831–851 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pear shoot number was higher with both manure doses than control in 2020.

Treatment
5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applicationse0
Outcome
number of shootse1
Direction
highere0
Comparator
controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while in 2020, 5 kg tree-1 and 10 kg tree-1 farm manure applications were higher than control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 963–1056 · show in text ↑
e1

“the number of shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 831–851 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ten kg manure per tree raised first-year soil organic matter from 1.02% to 3.03%.

Treatment
10 kg farm manure per treee0
Outcome
organic matter content of the soile0
Direction
increasede0
Value
3.03%e0
Qualifier
at the end of the first yeare0
Comparator
"low" level (1.02%)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With the application of 10 kg farm manure per tree, the organic matter content of the soil was increased from "low" level (1.02%) to "medium" level (3.03%) at the end of the first year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1242 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 5 kg dose raised first-year soil organic matter to 2.45%, less than the high dose.

Treatment
5 kg tree-1 dose applicatione0
Outcome
amount of organic mattere0
Direction
increasee0
Value
2.45%e0
Comparator
10 kg farm manure per treee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A similar situation was valid for 5 kg tree-1 dose application, although the increase in the amount of organic matter was lower (2.45%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1244–1379 · show in text ↑
e1

“10 kg farm manure per tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1082–1108 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High-dose soil organic matter remained medium at 2.14% after the second year.

Treatment
high dose applicatione0
Outcome
level of organic mattere0
Value
2.14%e0
Qualifier
At the end of the second yeare0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At the end of the second year, while the level of organic matter in soils where high dose application was applied was preserved as "medium" (2.14%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1381–1528 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low-dose soil organic matter fell back to the low class at 1.45% in year two.

Treatment
low dose applicatione0
Outcome
level of organic mattere0
Direction
fell backe0
Value
1.45%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the low dose application lost its effectiveness and the level of organic matter fell back to the "low" class (1.45%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1530–1646 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 10 kg per tree dose most effectively reduced bulk density and penetration resistance.

Treatment
10 kg tree-1 dosee0
Outcome
bulk density and penetration resistancee0
Direction
reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The most effective application reducing bulk density and penetration resistance was 10 kg tree-1 dose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1648–1749 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–69 · show in text ↑

fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 13 positive, 5 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

fertilization · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 23 positive, 2 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 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.