Abstract
resistant apple cultivars (cvs. Liberty and Prima) in three high-density organic apple orchards treated with copperand sulfur-based fungicide programs. The area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) for leaf and fruit incidences was calculated to evaluate three winter pruning treatments (unpruned, weakly pruned, and strongly pruned). Strong pruning significantly decreased leaf scab on the susceptible and the moderately susceptible cultivars at all sites compared with unpruned ones. Moreover, for the cultivar Jonagold in all years and for the cultivar Mutsu in 2001, AUDPC values of strongly pruned trees were significantly lower at P = 0.05 compared with the weaklypruned trees. The effect of pruning on development of fruit scab was weaker than on leaf scab in all years and at all sites. For fruit scab incidence on susceptible cultivars, only strong pruning treatments decreased AUDPC significantly compared with unpruned treatments. The effects of pruning treatments on moderately susceptible cultivars were significant only in 2001 at all sites. Resistant cultivars showed no significant effect of pruning treatments on development of either fruit or leaf scab except for cultivar Liberty in 2001 at one site. Pruning resulted in no consistent difference in the apple tree canopy microclimate. However, strong pruning resulted in improved spray deposition in the tree canopy when applications were made with an airblast sprayer at midsummer. Results are compared with similar studies, and their biological interpretation is discussed.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
Strong pruning significantly reduced leaf scab on susceptible and moderately susceptible cultivars at all sites relative to unpruned trees.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- Strong pruninge0
- Outcome
- leaf scabe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- at all sitese0
- Comparator
- unpruned onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Strong pruning significantly decreased leaf scab on the susceptible and the moderately susceptible cultivars at all sites compared with unpruned ones”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Strongly pruned Jonagold trees had significantly lower leaf-scab AUDPC than weakly pruned trees in all years.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- Jonagolde0
- Treatment
- strongly pruned treese0
- Outcome
- AUDPC valuese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- in all yearse0
- Comparator
- weaklypruned treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for the cultivar Jonagold in all years and for the cultivar Mutsu in 2001, AUDPC values of strongly pruned trees were significantly lower at P = 0.05 compared with the weaklypruned trees”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Strongly pruned Mutsu trees had significantly lower AUDPC than weakly pruned trees in 2001.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- Mutsue0
- Treatment
- strongly pruned treese0
- Outcome
- AUDPC valuese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- in 2001e0
- Comparator
- weaklypruned treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for the cultivar Jonagold in all years and for the cultivar Mutsu in 2001, AUDPC values of strongly pruned trees were significantly lower at P = 0.05 compared with the weaklypruned trees”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning affected fruit scab less than leaf scab across all years and sites.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- development of fruit scabe0
- Direction
- weakere0
- Comparator
- leaf scabe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of pruning on development of fruit scab was weaker than on leaf scab in all years and at all sites”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Only strong pruning significantly reduced fruit-scab AUDPC on susceptible cultivars relative to unpruned trees.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- strong pruning treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fruit scab incidencee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- unpruned treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For fruit scab incidence on susceptible cultivars, only strong pruning treatments decreased AUDPC significantly compared with unpruned treatments”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning effects on moderately susceptible cultivars were significant only in 2001 at all sites.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- pruning treatmentse0
- Outcome
- effects of pruning treatmentse0
- Qualifier
- only in 2001 at all sitese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effects of pruning treatments on moderately susceptible cultivars were significant only in 2001 at all sites”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Resistant cultivars generally showed no significant pruning response in fruit or leaf scab.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- pruning treatmentse0
- Outcome
- development of either fruit or leaf scabe0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Qualifier
- except for cultivar Liberty in 2001 at one sitee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Resistant cultivars showed no significant effect of pruning treatments on development of either fruit or leaf scab except for cultivar Liberty in 2001 at one site”
t0“Apple Scab”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning produced no consistent canopy microclimate difference.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- Pruninge0
- Outcome
- tree canopy microclimatee0
- Direction
- no consistent differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pruning resulted in no consistent difference in the apple tree canopy microclimate”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong pruning improved spray deposition in the canopy with a midsummer airblast sprayer.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- strong pruninge0
- Outcome
- spray depositione0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- airblast sprayer at midsummere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“strong pruning resulted in improved spray deposition in the tree canopy when applications were made with an airblast sprayer at midsummer”
t0“Apple Scab”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →pruning · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 58 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
102 papers more in this group
See all 106 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.