Abstract
A high and stable apple yield is critical for rainfed hilly apple orchards; however, many factors threaten apple yield and sustainable apple production, including water shortage , soil erosion , and chemical fertilizer overuse. Therefore, we undertook a field trial with three treatments— (1) organic and inorganic fertilizer combining a water-saving technique (OIWS), (2) inorganic fertilizer combining a water-saving technique (IWS), and (3) inorganic fertilizer alone (CK)—to determine how to alleviate these yield-limiting factors and improve soil fertility. Averaged across five years (2016–2020), the OIWS treatment increased apple yield the most, by 24.87% and 67.34% relative to IWS and CK, respectively. The OIWS treatment also had the highest apple yield stability, despite no significant differences between treatments, indicating OIWS treatment could produce higher apple yield year by year relative to IWS and CK. In comparison to IWS and CK, OIWS treatment showed greater 0–1 m by 12.21% and 26.08% and 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS) by 14.81% and 19.12%, as well as the highest abundance of 0–1 m soil microaggregates (0.053–0.2 mm) and macroaggregates (0.2–2 mm). Moreover, relative to IWS and CK averaged across the five years and 0–2 m soil layers, OIWS treatment substantially enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) by 4.23 and 3.93 g kg −1 and total nitrogen (TN) by 0.09 and 0.11 g kg −1 , respectively. Furthermore, Changes in apple production were positively linked with variations in 0–1 m SWS, soil microaggregate and macroaggregate abundance, and SOC and TN. And the most relevant factor to apple yield is 0–1 m SWS. Overall, on the Loess Plateau, OIWS system is a sustainable approach for increasing apple productivity and soil fertilities in rainfed hilly orchards.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased apple yield by 24.87% relative to IWS.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.87%e0
- Comparator
- IWSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Averaged across five years (2016–2020), the OIWS treatment increased apple yield the most, by 24.87% and 67.34% relative to IWS and CK, respectively.”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased apple yield by 67.34% relative to CK.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 67.34%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Averaged across five years (2016–2020), the OIWS treatment increased apple yield the most, by 24.87% and 67.34% relative to IWS and CK, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS had the highest apple yield stability, although differences between treatments were not significant.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- apple yield stabilitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- between treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The OIWS treatment also had the highest apple yield stability, despite no significant differences between treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased 0–1 m soil water storage by 12.21% relative to IWS.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In comparison to IWS and CK, OIWS treatment showed greater 0–1 m by 12.21% and 26.08% and 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS) by 14.81% and 19.12%”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased 0–1 m soil water storage by 26.08% relative to CK.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In comparison to IWS and CK, OIWS treatment showed greater 0–1 m by 12.21% and 26.08% and 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS) by 14.81% and 19.12%”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased 0–3 m soil water storage by 14.81% relative to IWS.
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 14.81%e0
- Comparator
- IWSe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In comparison to IWS and CK, OIWS treatment showed greater 0–1 m by 12.21% and 26.08% and 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS) by 14.81% and 19.12%”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased 0–3 m soil water storage by 19.12% relative to CK.
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS)e0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 19.12%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In comparison to IWS and CK, OIWS treatment showed greater 0–1 m by 12.21% and 26.08% and 0–3 m soil water storage (SWS) by 14.81% and 19.12%”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS had the highest abundance of soil microaggregates and macroaggregates in 0–1 m soil.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“as well as the highest abundance of 0–1 m soil microaggregates (0.053–0.2 mm) and macroaggregates (0.2–2 mm)”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased soil organic carbon by 4.23 g kg −1 relative to IWS.
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 4.23e0
- Qualifier
- g kg −1e0
- Comparator
- IWSe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“relative to IWS and CK averaged across the five years and 0–2 m soil layers, OIWS treatment substantially enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) by 4.23 and 3.93 g kg −1 and total nitrogen (TN) by 0.09 and 0.11 g kg −1 , respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased soil organic carbon by 3.93 g kg −1 relative to CK.
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon (SOC)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 3.93 g kg −1e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“relative to IWS and CK averaged across the five years and 0–2 m soil layers, OIWS treatment substantially enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) by 4.23 and 3.93 g kg −1 and total nitrogen (TN) by 0.09 and 0.11 g kg −1 , respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased soil total nitrogen by 0.09 g kg −1 relative to IWS.
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- total nitrogen (TN)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 0.09e0
- Qualifier
- g kg −1e0
- Comparator
- IWSe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“relative to IWS and CK averaged across the five years and 0–2 m soil layers, OIWS treatment substantially enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) by 4.23 and 3.93 g kg −1 and total nitrogen (TN) by 0.09 and 0.11 g kg −1 , respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
OIWS increased soil total nitrogen by 0.11 g kg −1 relative to CK.
- Treatment
- OIWS treatmente0
- Outcome
- total nitrogen (TN)e0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Value
- 0.11 g kg −1e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“relative to IWS and CK averaged across the five years and 0–2 m soil layers, OIWS treatment substantially enhanced soil organic carbon (SOC) by 4.23 and 3.93 g kg −1 and total nitrogen (TN) by 0.09 and 0.11 g kg −1 , respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple production was positively linked with soil water storage and soil aggregate abundance.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- apple productione0
- Direction
- positively linkede0
- Qualifier
- 0–1 m SWS, soil microaggregate and macroaggregate abundancee0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorTreatmentComparatorSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes in apple production were positively linked with variations in 0–1 m SWS, soil microaggregate and macroaggregate abundance, and SOC and TN.”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple production was positively linked with soil organic carbon and total nitrogen.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- apple productione0
- Direction
- positively linkede0
- Qualifier
- SOC and TNe0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorTreatmentComparatorSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes in apple production were positively linked with variations in 0–1 m SWS, soil microaggregate and macroaggregate abundance, and SOC and TN.”
Claim · model-written summary
The factor most relevant to apple yield was 0–1 m soil water storage.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Qualifier
- 0–1 m SWSe0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorTreatmentComparatorSettingDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the most relevant factor to apple yield is 0–1 m SWS.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude OIWS is a sustainable approach for increasing apple productivity and soil fertility on the Loess Plateau.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- OIWS systeme0
- Outcome
- increasing apple productivity and soil fertilitiese0
- Setting
- Loess Plateaue0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“on the Loess Plateau, OIWS system is a sustainable approach for increasing apple productivity and soil fertilities in rainfed hilly orchards.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: physics · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →fertilization · soil: chemistry · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →fertilization · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
149 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
174 papers more in this group
See all 178 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.