Abstract
Three cultivars (`Garnet Beauty', `Harbrite', `Canadian Harmony'), two ground covers (temporary cover vs. permanent sod), and no irrigation vs. season-long trickle irrigation were studied in a high-density (633 trees/ha) peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] orchard established on Fox sand in 1980. From 1985 to 1989, soil water content in the top 130 cm was similar in nonirrigated and trickle-irrigated plots except during the growing season (May to September). Total soil water was lowest in nonirrigated plots that had permanent sod strips in the row middles and fell below the-permanent wilting point for ≥11 months in summer but not at depths below 130 cm. Trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) was greater for `Canadian Harmony' and `Harbrite' than `Garnet Beauty', ground-cover treatments had no effect, and irrigated trees were generally larger than those not irrigated. Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance differed by cultivar, were unaffected by ground cover, and were enhanced by irrigation. Defoliation differed by cultivar, ground cover had little effect, and irrigation usually delayed defoliation. Flower bud and shoot xylem hardiness differed by cultivar but not by ground cover and were generally enhanced by irrigation. Tree survival was significantly affected by cultivar, being best with `Harbrite' and `Canadian Harmony' and poorest with `Garnet Beauty'. Permanent sod enhanced tree survival while trickle irrigation reduced it. Cumulative marketable yields were affected more by cultivar than by ground cover or irrigation. `Canadian Harmony' had the highest yield, followed by `Harbrite', then `Garnet Beauty'. Yields in sod were slightly higher than in temporary cover and yields with trickle irrigation were slightly higher than without irrigation. The best soil-management system when TCA, marketable yield, and tree survival were considered was a combination of permanent creeping red fescue sod strips in the row middles and trickle irrigation in the tree row. This system is being recommended to commercial growers in southwestern Ontario.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk cross-sectional area was greater in Canadian Harmony and Harbrite than Garnet Beauty.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicat0 - Material
- `Canadian Harmony' and `Harbrite'e0
- Outcome
- Trunk cross-sectional areae0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- `Garnet Beauty'e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) was greater for `Canadian Harmony' and `Harbrite' than `Garnet Beauty'”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground cover had no effect on trunk cross-sectional area.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- ground-cover treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ground-cover treatments had no effect”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) was greater for `Canadian Harmony' and `Harbrite' than `Garnet Beauty'”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated trees were generally larger.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- treese0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- those not irrigatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigated trees were generally larger than those not irrigated”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance differed by cultivar.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Outcome
- Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- differede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance differed by cultivar”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground cover did not affect photosynthetic rate or stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- ground covere0
- Outcome
- Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductancee1
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“were unaffected by ground cover”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance differed by cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation enhanced photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductancee1
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“were enhanced by irrigation”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance differed by cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation differed by cultivar.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Outcome
- Defoliatione0
- Direction
- differede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation differed by cultivar”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground cover had little effect on defoliation.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- ground covere0
- Outcome
- Defoliatione1
- Direction
- little effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ground cover had little effect”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Defoliation differed by cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation usually delayed defoliation.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- defoliatione0
- Direction
- delayede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation usually delayed defoliation”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower bud and shoot xylem hardiness differed by cultivar.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Outcome
- Flower bud and shoot xylem hardinesse0
- Direction
- differede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flower bud and shoot xylem hardiness differed by cultivar”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground cover did not affect flower bud or shoot xylem hardiness.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- ground covere0
- Outcome
- Flower bud and shoot xylem hardinesse1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but not by ground cover”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Flower bud and shoot xylem hardiness differed by cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation generally enhanced flower bud and shoot xylem hardiness.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- Flower bud and shoot xylem hardinesse1
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“were generally enhanced by irrigation”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Flower bud and shoot xylem hardiness differed by cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Tree survival was best for Harbrite and Canadian Harmony and poorest for Garnet Beauty.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- `Harbrite' and `Canadian Harmony'e0
- Outcome
- Tree survivale0
- Direction
- beste0
- Comparator
- `Garnet Beauty'e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tree survival was significantly affected by cultivar, being best with `Harbrite' and `Canadian Harmony' and poorest with `Garnet Beauty'”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Permanent sod enhanced tree survival.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Permanent sode0
- Outcome
- tree survivale0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Permanent sod enhanced tree survival”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation reduced tree survival.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- trickle irrigatione0
- Outcome
- tree survivale1
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“trickle irrigation reduced it”
t0“Peach Trees”
e1“Tree survival was significantly affected by cultivar, being best with `Harbrite' and `Canadian Harmony' and poorest with `Garnet Beauty'”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative marketable yields were affected more by cultivar than ground cover or irrigation.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Outcome
- Cumulative marketable yieldse0
- Direction
- moree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cumulative marketable yields were affected more by cultivar than by ground cover or irrigation”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Canadian Harmony had the highest yield, followed by Harbrite and Garnet Beauty.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- `Canadian Harmony'e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- `Harbrite'e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“`Canadian Harmony' had the highest yield, followed by `Harbrite', then `Garnet Beauty'”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Sod yielded slightly more than temporary cover.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields in sod were slightly higher than in temporary cover”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation yielded slightly more than no irrigation.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- trickle irrigatione0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- without irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yields with trickle irrigation were slightly higher than without irrigation”
t0“Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend permanent creeping red fescue sod strips with trickle irrigation to commercial growers in southwestern Ontario.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- This systeme0
- Setting
- southwestern Ontarioe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This system is being recommended to commercial growers in southwestern Ontario”
t0“Peach Trees”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · survival · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →irrigation · tolerance: abiotic · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
irrigation · pest · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.