Abstract
Fertigated ‘Gala’ apple trees on M.9 ( Malus domestica Borkh.) rootstock, planted in 1998, were grown on a coarse soil for 6 years (1998 to 2003) and exposed to eight orchard floor vegetation management treatments within the tree row. These consisted of a glyphosate control; three waste paper mulch treatments [spray-on mulch paper mulch (SM), SM incorporated with dichlobenil, SM applied over uniformly spread shredded office paper (SOP)]; and four living cover crop mulch treatments [dwarf white clover (WC), sweet clover (SC), hairy vetch (HV), and annual rye]. There were no significant treatment effects on leaf nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) status; however, leaf potassium (K) levels were negatively affected by the living mulch treatments in 2 of 5 years. Tree vigor was diminished by several of the orchard floor vegetation management systems in 5 of 6 years. Trees receiving an SM treatment grew more rapidly than trees receiving the ground cover treatments and trees receiving a glyphosate treatment had relatively poor but comparable growth to several of the cover crop treatments. Growth response in trees receiving SM were observed in all production years. After 6 years, cumulative yields were highest from trees receiving any of the three SM or glyphosate treatments and significantly less for any of the ground cover treatments. Weed growth within the rye cover crop was significantly reduced in comparison with the other living mulches; however, it remained sufficiently competitive to contribute to diminished overall yield and tree growth in comparison with the SM and gylphosate control treatments. Overall, response of leaf K concentration to mulch treatments was insufficient to prevent low K levels after 5 years. The addition of K through the organic mulches or recycling of K by cover crops was insufficient to avoid the development of low leaf K levels. Annual fertigation of K, in addition to N and P, appears necessary to maintain adequate vigor and yield when using mulches or cover crops in intensive, drip-irrigated apple orchards grown on coarse soils.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Living mulches lowered leaf potassium in two of five years.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- living mulch treatmentse0
- Outcome
- leaf potassium (K) levelse0
- Direction
- negatively affectede0
- Qualifier
- 2 of 5 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf potassium (K) levels were negatively affected by the living mulch treatments in 2 of 5 years”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Several orchard floor systems diminished tree vigor in five of six years.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- orchard floor vegetation management systemse0
- Outcome
- Tree vigore0
- Direction
- diminishede0
- Qualifier
- 5 of 6 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tree vigor was diminished by several of the orchard floor vegetation management systems in 5 of 6 years.”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Spray-on mulch trees grew more rapidly than ground cover trees.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- SM treatmente0
- Outcome
- Treese0
- Direction
- grew more rapidlye0
- Comparator
- ground cover treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees receiving an SM treatment grew more rapidly than trees receiving the ground cover treatments”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate-treated trees had relatively poor growth, comparable to several cover crops.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- glyphosate treatmente0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- relatively poor but comparablee0
- Comparator
- cover crop treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“trees receiving a glyphosate treatment had relatively poor but comparable growth to several of the cover crop treatments”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative yield was highest after spray-on mulch or glyphosate versus ground covers.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- three SM or glyphosate treatmentse0
- Outcome
- cumulative yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- ground cover treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cumulative yields were highest from trees receiving any of the three SM or glyphosate treatments and significantly less for any of the ground cover treatments”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye cover crop significantly reduced weed growth compared with other living mulches.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- rye cover crope0
- Interactor
- Weede0weed
- Outcome
- Weed growthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- other living mulchese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed growth within the rye cover crop was significantly reduced in comparison with the other living mulches”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye remained competitive enough to diminish yield and tree growth versus mulch or glyphosate.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- rye cover crope0
- Outcome
- overall yield and tree growthe0
- Direction
- diminishede0
- Comparator
- SM and gylphosate control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed growth within the rye cover crop was significantly reduced in comparison with the other living mulches; however, it remained sufficiently competitive to contribute to diminished overall yield and tree growth in comparison with the SM and gylphosate control treatments”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic mulches or cover crop recycling did not prevent low leaf potassium.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- organic mulches or recycling of K by cover cropse0
- Outcome
- leaf K levelse0
- Direction
- insufficient to avoide0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of K through the organic mulches or recycling of K by cover crops was insufficient to avoid the development of low leaf K levels.”
t0“Apple Orchards”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual potassium fertigation appears necessary for adequate vigor and yield with mulches or cover crops.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- Annual fertigation of Ke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Annual fertigation of K, in addition to N and P, appears necessary to maintain adequate vigor and yield when using mulches or cover crops in intensive, drip-irrigated apple orchards grown on coarse soils.”
The same questions in other papers
glyphosate · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
glyphosate · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
cover crop · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →mulching · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →cover crop · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
cultivation system · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →mulching · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →application · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
137 papers more in this group
See all 141 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.