Abstract
Arabica coffee is primarily cultivated in agroforestry systems in Indonesia, but limited local knowledge and technology adoption hinder its productivity due to insufficient practices in coffee pruning management. This study aims to analyze variations in coffee canopy pruning (Pruning+Bending) management and the impact on plant growth and soil physical characteristics.. The experiment employed a split-plot experimental design and utilized the Fisher test (5%) to assess the treatment effects. The primary plot focused on coffee canopy pruning using two management options: (1) Pruning (PR) and (2) Bending (BN). The subplots included various types and doses of fertilizer treatments: (1) Control (F0), (2) Chicken manure (F1), (3) Chicken manure+NPK fertilizer (F2), and (4) NPK fertilizer (F3). Each experimental plot covered an area of 20x20 m and contained 50 coffee plants. Bending techniques represent alternative pruning methods, and, in general, they have a significant impact on improving several coffee parameters compared to total pruning. Regarding the soil’s physical properties, the bending technique exhibited a higher infiltration rate than pruning. The management approach of Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2) enhanced various coffee parameters, resulting in an increased stem diameter of 4.79 cm, new shoot length of 471.20 cm, and chlorophyll content of 6.83 mg/g. Furthermore, this treatment increased soil organic carbon content by 7.51% and reduced bulk density to 0.58 g/cm. In conclusion, the bending technique wasproven to be more advantageous than pruning, especially when combined with chicken manure and NPK fertilizer for enhancing coffee management among farmers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Bending techniques had a significant impact on improving several coffee parameters compared with total pruning.
- Treatment
- Bending techniquese2
- Outcome
- several coffee parameterse1
- Direction
- improvinge1
- Comparator
- total pruninge1
CoffeaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“they have a significant impact on improving several coffee parameters compared to total pruning”
e2“Bending techniques”
Claim · model-written summary
The bending technique gave a higher soil infiltration rate than pruning.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the bending technique exhibited a higher infiltration rate than pruning”
t0“Coffee Canopy Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Bending combined with chicken manure plus NPK fertilizer (BNF2) increased coffee stem diameter to 4.79 cm.
- Treatment
- Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)e1
- Outcome
- stem diametere2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 4.79 cme2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)”
e2“increased stem diameter of 4.79 cm”
t0“Coffee Canopy Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
BNF2 increased coffee new shoot length to 471.20 cm.
- Treatment
- Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)e1
- Outcome
- new shoot lengthe2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 471.20 cme2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)”
e2“increased stem diameter of 4.79 cm, new shoot length of 471.20 cm”
t0“Coffee Canopy Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
BNF2 increased coffee chlorophyll content to 6.83 mg/g.
- Treatment
- Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)e1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 6.83 mg/ge2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)”
e2“increased stem diameter of 4.79 cm, new shoot length of 471.20 cm, and chlorophyll content of 6.83 mg/g”
t0“Coffee Canopy Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
BNF2 increased soil organic carbon content by 7.51%.
- Treatment
- Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)e1
- Outcome
- soil organic carbon contente2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 7.51%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)”
e2“this treatment increased soil organic carbon content by 7.51%”
t0“Coffee Canopy Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
BNF2 reduced soil bulk density to 0.58 g/cm.
- Treatment
- Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)e1
- Outcome
- bulk densitye2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 0.58 g/cme2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Bending+Chicken manure: NPK fertilizer (BNF2)”
e2“reduced bulk density to 0.58 g/cm”
t0“Coffee Canopy Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude the bending technique is more advantageous than pruning for coffee management by farmers, especially combined with chicken manure and NPK fertilizer.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the bending technique wasproven to be more advantageous than pruning, especially when combined with chicken manure and NPK fertilizer for enhancing coffee management”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · physiology: pigments · Coffea (coffee)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
fertilization · soil: chemistry · Coffea (coffee)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 · growth · Coffea (coffee)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →fertilization · soil: physics · Coffea (coffee)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.