Paper · 2025 · Agronomy

Differences in Weed Taxa Community in a Young Apple Orchard (‘King Roat Red Delicious’ Cultivar) Depending on the Presence of Living Mulch and the Application of Two Nitrogen Fertilization Rates

Urszula Barbara Bałuszyńska; Maria Licznar-Małańczuk

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of two nitrogen doses in combination with strong creeping fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. rubra Gaudin) and Chewing’s red fescue (Festuca rubra L. ssp. commutata Gaudin) used as living mulches on the weed community in an apple tree (Malus domestica Borkh.) orchard. The cover grasses were sown in the tree rows, and herbicide fallow served as the control. Grass living mulches effectively reduced the number and share of annual weed cover and limited the spread of perennial plants compared with herbicide fallow. Use of F. rubra L. subspecies did not favor the biodiversity of the orchard agroecosystem flora, due to the effective soil surface coverage by sod in the tree rows. Living mulch sod was characterized by lower variability in weed taxa compared with the abundant weed composition in the herbicide fallow, which also exhibited the highest number of weed taxa each year. Dominant species in the orchard across all treatments included Trifolium repens L. and Taraxacum spp. Doubling the nitrogen fertilization rate, while limiting the application area to the tree canopy, did not increase the perennial weed population in the living mulch sod. Both subspecies are useful as living mulch in a young apple orchard, but from the perspective of sod durability and weed control, strong creeping red fescue offers better prospects.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grass living mulches reduced annual weed number and cover relative to herbicide fallow.

Treatment
Grass living mulchese0
Interactor
annual weede0weed
Outcome
number and share of annual weed covere0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
herbicide fallowe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grass living mulches effectively reduced the number and share of annual weed cover and limited the spread of perennial plants compared with herbicide fallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–565 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Grass living mulches limited perennial plant spread relative to herbicide fallow.

Treatment
Grass living mulchese0
Interactor
perennial plantse0weed
Outcome
spread of perennial plantse0
Direction
limitede0
Comparator
herbicide fallowe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grass living mulches effectively reduced the number and share of annual weed cover and limited the spread of perennial plants compared with herbicide fallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–565 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

F. rubra subspecies did not favor orchard flora biodiversity through effective sod coverage.

Treatment
F. rubra L. subspeciese0
Interactor
F. rubra L. subspeciesFestuca rubrae0weed
Outcome
biodiversity of the orchard agroecosystem florae0
Direction
did not favore0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Festuca rubra
Festuca rubra · InteractorKristian Peters -- Fabelfroh 12:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Use of F. rubra L. subspecies did not favor the biodiversity of the orchard agroecosystem flora, due to the effective soil surface coverage by sod in the tree rows”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–730 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Living mulch sod had lower weed taxa variability than herbicide fallow.

Treatment
Living mulch sode0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
variability in weed taxae0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
herbicide fallowe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Living mulch sod was characterized by lower variability in weed taxa compared with the abundant weed composition in the herbicide fallow”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 732–868 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicide fallow had the highest number of weed taxa each year.

Treatment
herbicide fallowe0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
number of weed taxae0
Direction
higheste0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the herbicide fallow, which also exhibited the highest number of weed taxa each year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–932 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Trifolium repens L. was dominant across orchard treatments.

Interactor
Trifolium repens L.Trifolium repense0weed
Outcome
Dominant speciese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trifolium repens
Trifolium repens · InteractorIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dominant species in the orchard across all treatments included Trifolium repens L. and Taraxacum spp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 934–1035 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Taraxacum spp. was dominant across orchard treatments.

Interactor
Taraxacum spp.Taraxacume0weed
Outcome
Dominant speciese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Taraxacum
Taraxacum · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)David Ratledge · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dominant species in the orchard across all treatments included Trifolium repens L. and Taraxacum spp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 934–1035 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Doubling nitrogen rate in the tree canopy did not increase perennial weeds in living mulch sod.

Treatment
Doubling the nitrogen fertilization ratee0
Interactor
perennial weede0weed
Outcome
perennial weed populatione0
Direction
did not increasee0
Qualifier
limiting the application area to the tree canopye0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Doubling the nitrogen fertilization rate, while limiting the application area to the tree canopy, did not increase the perennial weed population in the living mulch sod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1036–1204 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–59 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Strong creeping red fescue offers better prospects for sod durability and weed control.

Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
strong creeping red fescue offers better prospectse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“from the perspective of sod durability and weed control, strong creeping red fescue offers better prospects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1279–1386 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Orchard”

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

fertilization · weed · Malus domestica (apple)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 →

cover crop · weed · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

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

mulching · weed · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

13 papers: 13 positive, 0 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  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.