Paper · 2000 · Journal of Plant Production

EFFECT OF SPRAYING SOME NUTRIENTS AND GIBBERELLIC ACID ON LEAF MINERAL CONTENT, FRUIT CHARACTERS AND YIELD OF LE-CONTE PEAR TREES

Amal El Seginy,; Bahan Khalil

10
claims
19
verbatim quotes
3
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

This investigation was carried out on Le-Conte pear trees, to study the effect of spraying potassium oxide (Ko2), Urea and gibberellic acid (GA3), alone or in combinations on fruit set percentage, yield., leaf mineral contents and fruit characters. Fruit quality was also studied after cold storage for one or two months. Results revealed that, all treatments gave significant increase in fruit set percentage and yield. Spray (Ko2 1.5 ml/L (or) 3.0 ml/L GA3 20 ppm), was superior for all results comparing to other treatments. Spraying of urea 1% + GA3 20 ppm gave better results than spraying with Ko2 1.5 ml/L (or) 3.0 ml/L + GA3 20 ppm. No differences were found for the two concentrations of KO2. Urea plus GA3 treatments in both seasons significantly increased leaf (N) content and decreased leaf (K) content. Concerning leaf (P) content, there was no clear differences between all treatments. During cold storage of pear fruits, firmness and total acidity were less than before storing and that of control. Total soluble solids were increased during cold storage.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All spray treatments significantly increased pear fruit set and yield.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
all treatmentse0
Outcome
fruit set percentage and yielde0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“all treatments gave significant increase in fruit set percentage and yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 345–420 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The stated potassium oxide or gibberellic acid sprays were superior to other treatments.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
Spray (Ko2 1.5 ml/L (or) 3.0 ml/L GA3 20 ppm)e0
Outcome
superior for all resultse0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“Spray (Ko2 1.5 ml/L (or) 3.0 ml/L GA3 20 ppm), was superior for all results comparing to other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 421–527 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea plus gibberellic acid gave better results than potassium oxide plus gibberellic acid.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
urea 1% + GA3 20 ppme0
Outcome
better resultse0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
Ko2 1.5 ml/L (or) 3.0 ml/L + GA3 20 ppme0

Verbatim

e0

“Spraying of urea 1% + GA3 20 ppm gave better results than spraying with Ko2 1.5 ml/L (or) 3.0 ml/L + GA3 20 ppm.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–640 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two potassium oxide concentrations produced no differences.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
two concentrations of KO2e0
Outcome
No differencese0
Direction
No differencese0
Comparator
two concentrations of KO2e0

Verbatim

e0

“No differences were found for the two concentrations of KO2.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 641–701 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea plus gibberellic acid increased leaf nitrogen content.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
Urea plus GA3 treatmentse0
Outcome
leaf (N) contente0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Urea plus GA3 treatments in both seasons significantly increased leaf (N) content and decreased leaf (K) content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–815 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea plus gibberellic acid decreased leaf potassium content.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
Urea plus GA3 treatmentse0
Outcome
leaf (K) contente0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Urea plus GA3 treatments in both seasons significantly increased leaf (N) content and decreased leaf (K) content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–815 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf phosphorus content showed no clear difference among treatments.

Taxon
Le-Conte pear treese1
Treatment
all treatmentse0
Outcome
leaf (P) contente0
Direction
no clear differencese0
Comparator
all treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“Concerning leaf (P) content, there was no clear differences between all treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 816–899 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cold storage reduced pear fruit firmness relative to before storage and control.

Treatment
cold storagee0
Outcome
firmnesse0
Direction
lesse0
Comparator
before storing and that of 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

“During cold storage of pear fruits, firmness and total acidity were less than before storing and that of control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 900–1013 · show in text ↑
e1

“Le-Conte pear trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 38–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cold storage reduced pear fruit total acidity relative to before storage and control.

Treatment
cold storagee0
Outcome
total aciditye0
Direction
lesse0
Comparator
before storing and that of 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

“During cold storage of pear fruits, firmness and total acidity were less than before storing and that of control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 900–1013 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total soluble solids increased during cold storage of pear fruit.

Treatment
cold storagee0
Outcome
Total soluble solidse0
Direction
increasede0

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

“Total soluble solids were increased during cold storage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1014–1070 · show in text ↑
e1

“pear fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–934 · show in text ↑

cold · quality: postharvest · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

cold · quality: sugar starch · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.