Abstract
"The effects of tree spacing (5x2m, 5x2.5m, 5x3m, 5x3.5m and 5x4m) and pruning (8 buds/cane, 6 buds/cane and 4 buds/cane) on vegetative growth, physiological parameters, fruit yield and quality were studied in fig (Ficus carica L.) cv. Deanna in the 3rd and 4th year of its growth during the period 2010-12. It was observed that with increase in tree spacing, growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internode length, tree-spread, tree height and tree circumference, along with fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels. Increase in pruning level from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/cane resulted in increased leaf number, shoot length and internode length. Yield characters, viz., fruit number/tree, fruit weight/tree, fruit number/hectare and fruit weight/hectare were marginally influenced by pruning. However, interaction effects of pruning and spacing were found to be non-significant. Consistently declining trends in photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance, along with increase in leaf water potential value were observed with increase in spacing. Effects of spacing were more conspicuous than those of pruning. Best results for maintenance of vigour and fruit yield were observed under a spacing of 5x2m or 5x2.5m, and 4 buds/cane pruning. Although there was reduction in average fruit size under closer spacing when compared to wide spacing, fruit quality attributes like TSS and acidity were not affected by various treatments. Effects of closer spacing on growth and yield parameters were more pronounced in the 3rd year as compared to the 4th year, showing better response to treatments in young trees. Fruit yield calculated on per hectare basis showed highest fruit number of 116500-133750 and 274500 299500, and fruit weight of 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha, respectively, during the 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning"
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing reduced fig leaf number, shoot length and internode length.
- Taxon
- figt0
- Treatment
- increase in tree spacinge0
- Outcome
- leaf number, shoot length, internode lengthe0
- Direction
- declinede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“with increase in tree spacing, growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internode length, tree-spread, tree height and tree circumference, along with fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing reduced fig tree spread, height and circumference.
- Taxon
- figt0
- Treatment
- increase in tree spacinge0
- Outcome
- tree-spread, tree height and tree circumferencee0
- Direction
- declinede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“with increase in tree spacing, growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internode length, tree-spread, tree height and tree circumference, along with fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing reduced fig fruit number and weight per tree.
- Taxon
- figt0
- Treatment
- increase in tree spacinge1
- Outcome
- fruit number and fruit weight per treee0
- Direction
- declinede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree, declined gradually under different pruning levels”
e1“with increase in tree spacing”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning from eight to four buds per cane increased fig leaf number, shoot length and internode length.
Verbatim
e0“Increase in pruning level from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/cane resulted in increased leaf number, shoot length and internode length”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning marginally influenced fig fruit number and weight per tree and hectare.
- Taxon
- figt0
- Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- fruit number/tree, fruit weight/tree, fruit number/hectaree0
- Qualifier
- marginallye0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Yield characters, viz., fruit number/tree, fruit weight/tree, fruit number/hectare and fruit weight/hectare were marginally influenced by pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning marginally influenced fig fruit weight per hectare.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“fruit weight/hectare were marginally influenced by pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning by spacing interactions were not significant.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“interaction effects of pruning and spacing were found to be non-significant”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing reduced fig photosynthesis and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- figt0
- Treatment
- increase in spacinge0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- declininge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Consistently declining trends in photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance, along with increase in leaf water potential value were observed with increase in spacing”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing spacing increased fig leaf water potential.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“increase in leaf water potential value were observed with increase in spacing”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing had more conspicuous effects than pruning.
Verbatim
e0“Effects of spacing were more conspicuous than those of pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The best vigour and yield occurred with 5x2m or 5x2.5m spacing and four-bud pruning.
Verbatim
e0“Best results for maintenance of vigour and fruit yield were observed under a spacing of 5x2m or 5x2.5m, and 4 buds/cane pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Closer spacing reduced average fig fruit size.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in average fruit size under closer spacing when compared to wide spacing”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments did not affect fig TSS and acidity.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“fruit quality attributes like TSS and acidity were not affected by various treatments”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Closer spacing had stronger growth and yield effects in year three than year four.
Verbatim
e0“Effects of closer spacing on growth and yield parameters were more pronounced in the 3rd year as compared to the 4th year”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under closer spacing and four-bud pruning, fruit number per hectare was reported as 116500-133750 in year three.
Verbatim
e0“fruit number of 116500-133750 and 274500 299500”
e1“during the 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Under closer spacing and four-bud pruning, fruit number per hectare was reported as 274500 299500 in year four.
Verbatim
e0“fruit number of 116500-133750 and 274500 299500”
e1“during the 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit weight per hectare was 54.5-62.0 quintals/ha in year three.
Verbatim
e0“fruit weight of 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha”
e1“during the 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit weight per hectare was 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha in year four.
Verbatim
e0“fruit weight of 54.5-62.0 and 158.77- 173.30 quintals/ha”
e1“during the 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2m and 4 buds/cane pruning”
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
The same questions in other papers
density · physiology: photosynthesis · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
density · yield · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
density · growth · Ficus carica (common fig)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
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.