Abstract
Abstract Antitranspirant sprays of 5 film-forming materials were compared on mature Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck cv. Valencia trees for film persistence and reduction of fruit weight loss after harvest. These materials were also sprayed on young ‘Pineapple’ ( C. sinensis ) or ‘Valencia’ orange trees growing in 7.6 liter containers on which weight loss was subsequently measured for 48-hour periods after watering. Spray solutions of equal or known film-forming ingredients (solids content) of 1 to 4% (weight/weight) were applied and compared. Plantgard film did not significantly increase the leaf epicuticular coating nor did it reduce fruit weight loss or young tree water use. Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCF did result in heavier leaf coatings and less fruit weight loss than the controls. Mobileaf and Vapor Gard reduced potted tree water use. Some loss of effectiveness and coating thickness occurred 5 months after application, but only a small nonsignificant change in effectiveness occurred during the first 2 months after application. Mobileaf and Vapor Gard appeared to give the best antitranspirant protection for the initial 2 months and Vapor Gard for 5 months.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
Claim · model-written summary
Plantgard did not significantly increase leaf coating.
- Treatment
- Plantgard filme0
- Outcome
- leaf epicuticular coatinge0
- Direction
- did not significantly increasee0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Plantgard film did not significantly increase the leaf epicuticular coating nor did it reduce fruit weight loss or young tree water use.”
Claim · model-written summary
Plantgard did not reduce fruit weight loss.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Plantgard film did not significantly increase the leaf epicuticular coating nor did it reduce fruit weight loss or young tree water use.”
Claim · model-written summary
Plantgard did not reduce young-tree water use.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Plantgard film did not significantly increase the leaf epicuticular coating nor did it reduce fruit weight loss or young tree water use.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCF gave heavier leaf coatings than controls.
- Treatment
- Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCFe0
- Outcome
- leaf coatingse0
- Direction
- heaviere0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCF did result in heavier leaf coatings and less fruit weight loss than the controls.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCF reduced fruit weight loss relative to controls.
- Treatment
- Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCFe0
- Outcome
- fruit weight losse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Mobileaf, Vapor Gard, Nu-Film-17, and Wilt Pruf NCF did result in heavier leaf coatings and less fruit weight loss than the controls.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mobileaf and Vapor Gard reduced water use of potted orange trees.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Mobileaf and Vapor Gard reduced potted tree water use.”
Claim · model-written summary
Effectiveness and coating thickness declined by five months.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Some loss of effectiveness and coating thickness occurred 5 months after application”
Claim · model-written summary
Effectiveness changed only slightly and nonsignificantly in the first two months.
- Outcome
- effectivenesse0
- Direction
- small nonsignificant changee0
- Qualifier
- first 2 months after applicatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“only a small nonsignificant change in effectiveness occurred during the first 2 months after application.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mobileaf and Vapor Gard appeared to provide the best protection for two months.
- Treatment
- Mobileaf and Vapor Garde0
- Outcome
- antitranspirant protectione0
- Direction
- beste0
- Qualifier
- initial 2 monthse0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Mobileaf and Vapor Gard appeared to give the best antitranspirant protection for the initial 2 months”
Claim · model-written summary
Vapor Gard appeared to give the best protection at five months.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Mobileaf and Vapor Gard appeared to give the best antitranspirant protection for the initial 2 months and Vapor Gard for 5 months.”