Abstract
Abstract Mature ‘McIntosh’, ‘Empire’, and ‘Golden Delicious’ apple trees ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were sprayed with simulated acid rain solutions in the pH range of 2.5 to 5.5 at full bloom in 1980 and in 1981. In 1981, weekly sprays were applied at pH 2.75 and pH 3.25. Necrotic lesions developed on apple petals at pH 2.5 with slight injury appearing at pH 3.0 and pH 3.5. Apple foliage had no acid rain lesions at any of the pH levels tested. Pollen germination was reduced at pH 2.5 in ‘Empire’. Slight fruit set reduction at pH 2.5 was observed in ‘McIntosh’. The incidence of russetting on ‘Golden Delicious’ fruits was ameliorated by the presence of rain-exclusion chambers but was not affected by acid rain. With season-long sprays at pH 2.75, there was a slight delay in maturity and lower weight of ‘McIntosh’ apples. Even at the lowest pH levels no detrimental effects of simulated acid rain were found on apple tree productivity and fruit quality when measured as fruit set, seed number per fruit, and fruit size and appearance.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
At pH 2.5 apple petals developed necrotic lesions; slight injury occurred at pH 3.0 and 3.5.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Organ / stage
- petalse0
- Treatment
- pH 2.5e0
- Outcome
- Necrotic lesionse0
- Qualifier
- slight injury appearing at pH 3.0 and pH 3.5e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Necrotic lesions developed on apple petals at pH 2.5 with slight injury appearing at pH 3.0 and pH 3.5.”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple foliage had no acid rain lesions at tested pH levels.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticae0
- Organ / stage
- foliagee0
- Treatment
- acid raine0
- Outcome
- acid rain lesionse0
- Direction
- noe0
- Qualifier
- at any of the pH levels testede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple foliage had no acid rain lesions at any of the pH levels tested.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollen germination was reduced at pH 2.5 in Empire.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- ‘Empire’e0
- Treatment
- pH 2.5e0
- Outcome
- Pollen germinatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pollen germination was reduced at pH 2.5 in ‘Empire’.”
t0“Apple Tree”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit set was slightly reduced at pH 2.5 in McIntosh.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- ‘McIntosh’e0
- Treatment
- pH 2.5e0
- Outcome
- fruit sete0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Slight fruit set reduction at pH 2.5 was observed in ‘McIntosh’.”
t0“Apple Tree”
Claim · model-written summary
Rain exclusion chambers ameliorated russetting on Golden Delicious fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- ‘Golden Delicious’e0
- Treatment
- rain-exclusion chamberse0
- Outcome
- incidence of russettinge0
- Direction
- amelioratede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The incidence of russetting on ‘Golden Delicious’ fruits was ameliorated by the presence of rain-exclusion chambers but was not affected by acid rain.”
t0“Apple Tree”
Claim · model-written summary
Acid rain did not affect russetting on Golden Delicious fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- ‘Golden Delicious’e0
- Treatment
- acid raine0
- Outcome
- incidence of russettinge0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The incidence of russetting on ‘Golden Delicious’ fruits was ameliorated by the presence of rain-exclusion chambers but was not affected by acid rain.”
t0“Apple Tree”
Claim · model-written summary
Season long pH 2.75 sprays slightly delayed McIntosh apple maturity.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Material
- ‘McIntosh’e0
- Treatment
- season-long sprays at pH 2.75e0
- Outcome
- maturitye0
- Direction
- delaye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With season-long sprays at pH 2.75, there was a slight delay in maturity and lower weight of ‘McIntosh’ apples.”
Claim · model-written summary
Season long pH 2.75 sprays lowered McIntosh apple weight.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Material
- ‘McIntosh’e0
- Treatment
- season-long sprays at pH 2.75e0
- Outcome
- weighte0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With season-long sprays at pH 2.75, there was a slight delay in maturity and lower weight of ‘McIntosh’ apples.”
Claim · model-written summary
Even the lowest simulated acid rain pH did not harm apple fruit set, seed number, size or appearance.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- simulated acid raine0
- Outcome
- fruit set, seed number per fruit, and fruit size and appearancee0
- Direction
- no detrimental effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Even at the lowest pH levels no detrimental effects of simulated acid rain were found on apple tree productivity and fruit quality when measured as fruit set, seed number per fruit, and fruit size and appearance.”
The same questions in other papers
rainfall · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
ph · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →ph · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →ph · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →climate site · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →application · phenology · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →application · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 76 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →climate site · phenology · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.