Abstract
SUMMARY Experiments were performed to determine the effects of simulated acidic rainfall on yields of radish (Raphanus sativa L.), garden beet (Beta vulgaris L.), kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) grown under standard agronomic practices. The experimental design allowed the detection of statistically significant differences among means that differed from each other by less than 10 %. The plants were exposed to small additions of simulated rain at pH levels of 5.7, 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7. The spray‐to‐wet simulated rain applications were similar in volume to the median of all ambient rainfall showers. Some plants received no simulated rainfall and all were exposed to ambient rainfall at Brookhaven National Laboratory (Upton, N.Y), which had a mean weighted pH of 4.06 during the summer of 1980. Root mass of radish was not significantly affected by simulated acidic rainfall. The absence of a decrease in root yields in radish was coincident with an absence of visible foliar injury. Beet plants treated with simulated rain applications of pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7 showed significant decreases in yield compared with yields under both the ambient rainfall only and pH 5.7 simulated rain treatments. Root yields of beet exposed to simulated rain at pH 5.7, 4.0. 3.1 and 2.7 were 110, 79, 84 and 86% of those receiving ambient rainfall only. Foliar injury on beet was attributed to exposure both to simulated acidic rain of pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7 and to several consecutive ambient rainfalls which had an average pH of 3.9. This is the first experiment showing visible foliar injury due to either ambient rainfalls or simulated rain above pH 3.1 under agronomic conditions. With kidney bean, there were no significant differences among treatments of such parameters as number of seeds per plant, mass of seeds per plant and number of pods per plant. There were also no significant differences among treatments for fresh mass or dry mass of alfalfa hay. These studies suggest that no generalizations about crop sensitivity with regard to either plant portion harvested (e.g. roots, fruits, leaves) or taxonomic considerations can be made at the present time.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Radish root mass was not significantly affected by simulated acidic rainfall.
- Taxon
- radish
Raphanus sativuse0 - Treatment
- simulated acidic rainfalle0
- Outcome
- Root masse0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root mass of radish was not significantly affected by simulated acidic rainfall.”
Claim · model-written summary
Radish showed no visible foliar injury alongside the absence of root yield reduction.
- Taxon
- radishRaphanus sativuse0
- Outcome
- absence of visible foliar injurye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The absence of a decrease in root yields in radish was coincident with an absence of visible foliar injury.”
Claim · model-written summary
Beet yield fell significantly under simulated rain at pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7 relative to ambient rainfall and pH 5.7 rain.
- Taxon
- Beet
Beta vulgarise0 - Treatment
- simulated rain applications of pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- decreasese0
- Comparator
- ambient rainfall only and pH 5.7 simulated rain treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Beet plants treated with simulated rain applications of pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7 showed significant decreases in yield compared with yields under both the ambient rainfall only and pH 5.7 simulated rain treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Beet root yields at pH 5.7, 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7 were respectively 110, 79, 84 and 86% of ambient-rainfall-only yields.
- Taxon
- beetBeta vulgarise0
- Outcome
- Root yieldse0
- Value
- 110, 79, 84 and 86%e0
- Comparator
- ambient rainfall onlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root yields of beet exposed to simulated rain at pH 5.7, 4.0. 3.1 and 2.7 were 110, 79, 84 and 86% of those receiving ambient rainfall only.”
Claim · model-written summary
Beet foliar injury was attributed to acidic simulated and ambient rain.
- Taxon
- beetBeta vulgarise0
- Treatment
- simulated acidic rain of pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7e0
- Outcome
- Foliar injurye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar injury on beet was attributed to exposure both to simulated acidic rain of pH 4.0, 3.1 and 2.7 and to several consecutive ambient rainfalls which had an average pH of 3.9.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under agronomic conditions, visible foliar injury occurred from ambient rain or simulated rain above pH 3.1.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“This is the first experiment showing visible foliar injury due to either ambient rainfalls or simulated rain above pH 3.1 under agronomic conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Kidney bean seed number, seed mass and pod number did not differ significantly among treatments.
- Taxon
- kidney bean
Phaseolus vulgarise0 - Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- number of seeds per plant, mass of seeds per plant and number of pods per plante0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With kidney bean, there were no significant differences among treatments of such parameters as number of seeds per plant, mass of seeds per plant and number of pods per plant.”
Claim · model-written summary
Alfalfa hay fresh and dry mass did not differ significantly among treatments.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0 - Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fresh mass or dry mass of alfalfa haye0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were also no significant differences among treatments for fresh mass or dry mass of alfalfa hay.”
The same questions in other papers
ph · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
rainfall · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
- negative
rainfall · growth · Raphanus sativus (radish)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.