Paper · 1976 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

Comparative effects of foliar- and root-applied phosphorus on one-year-old trees

BK Taylor; LG Issell

3
claims
5
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The response of one-year-old peach trees growing in sand culture to foliar applications of 1 per cent potassium dihydrogen phosphate given in summer, autumn, or summer ± autumn after initial pH adjustment to 2.5, 4.5 or 6.5 was compared with that of controls fed ± phosphate via roots. After one season, it was clear that foliar-applied phosphate had been less effective than root-applied phosphate as a means of increasing tree growth and phosphorus content. This result allied with other published information suggests that foliar applications are an inefficient means of supplying phosphate to fruit trees.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar phosphate was less effective than root phosphate for increasing tree growth.

Taxon
peach treesPrunus persicae1
Treatment
foliar-applied phosphatee0
Outcome
tree growthe0
Direction
less effectivee0
Comparator
root-applied phosphatee0

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar-applied phosphate had been less effective than root-applied phosphate as a means of increasing tree growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–435 · show in text ↑
e1

“one-year-old peach trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 16–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar phosphate was less effective than root phosphate for increasing phosphorus content.

Taxon
peach treesPrunus persicae1
Treatment
foliar-applied phosphatee0
Outcome
phosphorus contente0
Direction
less effectivee0
Comparator
root-applied phosphatee0

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar-applied phosphate had been less effective than root-applied phosphate as a means of increasing tree growth and phosphorus content”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–458 · show in text ↑
e1

“one-year-old peach trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 16–40 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar applications were judged an inefficient way to supply phosphate to fruit trees.

Taxon
fruit treese0
Outcome
inefficient means of supplying phosphatee0

Verbatim

e0

“foliar applications are an inefficient means of supplying phosphate to fruit trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 526–608 · show in text ↑

phosphorus · nutrient: content · Prunus persica (peach)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 →

phosphorus · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

application · nutrient: content · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 19 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

application · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

35 papers: 26 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

31 papers more in this group

See all 35 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.