Paper · 2024 · JSFA reports

Nitrogen fertilization rates in a subtropical peach orchard: Effect on fruit nutritional value and flavor

Zilfina Rubio Ames; Jeffrey K. Brecht; Mercy A. Olmstead; et al.

5
claims
8
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Background The necessity to help farmers improve yields has resulted in many years of agricultural research focused on productivity and disease resistance, neglecting other areas of fruit quality such as flavor, health benefits, and external appearance. Nitrogen is required for several biochemical processes. However, reducing N fertilization can increase the synthesis of antioxidants and volatile aroma compounds. Four‐N rates (0 (N0), 45 (N1), 90 (N2), 179 (N3), and 269 (N4) kg ha −1 ) were tested each year from 2011 to 2017 in two peach varieties melting flesh (MF) ‘TropicBeauty’ (TB), a soft texture peach, and non‐melting flesh (NMF) ‘UFSharp’ (UFS), a crispy texture peach, to determine the effect of N on nutritional value and flavor. Results The phytochemical composition of the NMF ‘UFSharp’ (UFS) and MF variety ‘TropicBeauty’ (TB) were not cleared affected by N rates. Volatile synthesis was little affected by N. The sensory evaluation showed that consumers preferred MF peaches compared with NMF, because of its juiciness. Conclusions Nitrogen fertilization had minor effects on peach fruit phytochemical composition, volatile aroma compounds, and consumer acceptability. The N effect could had been influence by pruning practices, training of the orchard, and the delay of fruit developmental period.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen rates did not clearly affect phytochemical composition in UFSharp fruit.

Material
‘UFSharp’e0
Treatment
N ratese0
Outcome
phytochemical compositione0
Direction
not cleared affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The phytochemical composition of the NMF ‘UFSharp’ (UFS) and MF variety ‘TropicBeauty’ (TB) were not cleared affected by N rates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 764–892 · show in text ↑
t0

“peach orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen rates did not clearly affect phytochemical composition in TropicBeauty fruit.

Material
‘TropicBeauty’e0
Treatment
N ratese0
Outcome
phytochemical compositione0
Direction
not cleared affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The phytochemical composition of the NMF ‘UFSharp’ (UFS) and MF variety ‘TropicBeauty’ (TB) were not cleared affected by N rates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 764–892 · show in text ↑
t0

“peach orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen rates had little effect on volatile synthesis in peach fruit.

Treatment
Ne0
Outcome
Volatile synthesise0
Direction
little affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Volatile synthesis was little affected by N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 894–937 · show in text ↑
t0

“peach orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–59 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Consumers preferred melting-flesh peaches to non-melting-flesh peaches because of juiciness.

Taxon
peachesPrunus persicae0
Material
MFe0
Outcome
preferred MF peachese0
Qualifier
juicinesse0
Comparator
NMFe0

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“consumers preferred MF peaches compared with NMF, because of its juiciness”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 974–1048 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilization had minor effects on peach fruit consumer acceptability.

Treatment
Nitrogen fertilizatione0
Outcome
consumer acceptabilitye0
Direction
minor effectse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Nitrogen fertilization had minor effects on peach fruit phytochemical composition, volatile aroma compounds, and consumer acceptability”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1062–1197 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · quality: general · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

fertilization · quality: general · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 8 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.