Paper · 1973 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

Effect of gibberellic acid on rind quality and storage of coastal Navel oranges

KB Bevington

11
claims
23
verbatim quotes
9
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effects of gibberellic acid (GA3), at various concentrations and application times, on the susceptibility of the rind to injury, the incidence of physiological disorders, and the storage life of Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons. Susceptibility of the rind to injury, the incidence of water spot, puffing and creasing, and green mould wastage in stored fruit were reduced by GA3 treatment. Resistance of the rind to puncture increased with increasing GA3 concentration. Early May sprays were more effective than early June sprays in increasing. the resistance of the rind to puncture and decreasing the incidence of puffing and creasing. Split applications were no more effective than single applications at the combined concentrations. There were no undesirable effects on internal fruit quality. Although colour development was delayed by GA3 treatment, with late harvest colour development progressed to a commercially acceptable level while internal fruit quality was still satisfactory.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GA3 reduced rind susceptibility to injury and water spot incidence.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
GA3 treatmente0
Outcome
Susceptibility of the rind to injury, the incidence of water spote0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Susceptibility of the rind to injury, the incidence of water spot, puffing and creasing, and green mould wastage in stored fruit were reduced by GA3 treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–417 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GA3 reduced puffing and creasing incidence.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
GA3 treatmente0
Outcome
puffing and creasinge0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Susceptibility of the rind to injury, the incidence of water spot, puffing and creasing, and green mould wastage in stored fruit were reduced by GA3 treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–417 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GA3 reduced green mould wastage in stored fruit.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
GA3 treatmente0
Outcome
green mould wastage in stored fruite0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Susceptibility of the rind to injury, the incidence of water spot, puffing and creasing, and green mould wastage in stored fruit were reduced by GA3 treatment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 258–417 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing GA3 concentration increased rind puncture resistance.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
increasing GA3 concentratione0
Outcome
Resistance of the rind to puncturee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Resistance of the rind to puncture increased with increasing GA3 concentration.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 418–497 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early May sprays increased rind puncture resistance more effectively than early June sprays.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
Early May sprayse0
Outcome
resistance of the rind to puncturee0
Direction
increasinge0
Comparator
early June sprayse0

Verbatim

e0

“Early May sprays were more effective than early June sprays in increasing. the resistance of the rind to puncture and decreasing the incidence of puffing and creasing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 498–665 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early May sprays decreased puffing and creasing more effectively than early June sprays.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
Early May sprayse0
Outcome
incidence of puffing and creasinge0
Direction
decreasinge0
Comparator
early June sprayse0

Verbatim

e0

“Early May sprays were more effective than early June sprays in increasing. the resistance of the rind to puncture and decreasing the incidence of puffing and creasing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 498–665 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Split applications were no more effective than single applications at combined concentrations.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
Split applicationse0
Outcome
no more effectivee0
Direction
no more effectivee0
Qualifier
at the combined concentrationse0
Comparator
single applicationse0

Verbatim

e0

“Split applications were no more effective than single applications at the combined concentrations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 666–764 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment had no undesirable effects on internal fruit quality.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese2
Treatment
GA3 treatmente1
Outcome
internal fruit qualitye0
Direction
no undesirable effectse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“There were no undesirable effects on internal fruit quality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 765–825 · show in text ↑
e1

“Although colour development was delayed by GA3 treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 826–882 · show in text ↑
e2

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GA3 delayed colour development.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Treatment
GA3 treatmente0
Outcome
colour developmente0
Direction
delayede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Although colour development was delayed by GA3 treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 826–882 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At late harvest colour reached a commercially acceptable level while internal quality remained satisfactory.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Outcome
colour development progressed to a commercially acceptable levele0
Qualifier
with late harveste0

Verbatim

e0

“with late harvest colour development progressed to a commercially acceptable level while internal fruit quality was still satisfactory.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 884–1019 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Internal fruit quality was still satisfactory at late harvest.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangese1
Outcome
internal fruit quality was still satisfactorye0
Qualifier
with late harveste0

Verbatim

e0

“with late harvest colour development progressed to a commercially acceptable level while internal fruit quality was still satisfactory.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 884–1019 · show in text ↑
e1

“Washington Navel oranges were examined over three seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–257 · show in text ↑

Gibberellic acid · quality: postharvest · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

Gibberellic acid · quality: grain · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

Gibberellic acid · disease · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

application · disease · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 15 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 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.