Paper · 2009 · Scientia Agricola

Cattle manure fertilization increases fig yield

Sarita Leonel; Marco Antonio Tecchio

3
claims
10
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Fertilization using organic compounds is complementary to chemical fertilization, being essential to integrated fruit production. Reports on fig tree (Ficus carica L.) organic fertilization and mineral nutrition are worldwide scarce, especially in Brazil. This experiment aimed to evaluate the effects of cattle manure fertilization on the yield and productivity of the fig tree 'Roxo de Valinhos' in Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil, during the 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 crop cycles. Plants aged one, two, three and four year olds received the following cattle manure treatments: control (no fertilizer), 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125% and 150% of the recommended N level for this crop. The evaluated variables were: fruit number, weight and mean diameter, plant yield and productivity. The application of cattle manure increased productivity, yield and fruit number, slightly affecting fruit dimensions. After four years of cattle manure application, the best results were obtained with 76 to 124% of the N level recommended for the fig crop.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle manure increased fig productivity, yield and fruit number.

Taxon
fig treee1
Material
Roxo de Valinhose2
Treatment
cattle manuree0
Outcome
productivity, yield and fruit numbere0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control (no fertilizer)e3
Setting
Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazile4

Verbatim

e0

“The application of cattle manure increased productivity, yield and fruit number”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 796–875 · show in text ↑
e1

“fig tree (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 141–167 · show in text ↑
e2

“Roxo de Valinhos”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 380–396 · show in text ↑
e3

“control (no fertilizer)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 594–617 · show in text ↑
e4

“Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 401–434 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle manure affected fig fruit dimensions only slightly.

Taxon
fig treee1
Treatment
cattle manuree2
Outcome
fruit dimensionse0
Qualifier
slightlye0
Comparator
control (no fertilizer)e3

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“slightly affecting fruit dimensions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 877–912 · show in text ↑
e1

“fig tree (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 141–167 · show in text ↑
e2

“application of cattle manure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 800–828 · show in text ↑
e3

“control (no fertilizer)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 594–617 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After four years, 76 to 124% of recommended nitrogen gave the best results.

Taxon
fige0
Treatment
cattle manure applicatione0
Outcome
best resultse0
Direction
beste0
Value
76 to 124%e0
Qualifier
After four yearse0

Verbatim

e0

“After four years of cattle manure application, the best results were obtained with 76 to 124% of the N level recommended for the fig crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 914–1051 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 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.