Paper · 2006 · Indian Journal of Horticulture

Influence of pruning severity and time on yield and fruit quality of ber cv. Umran

K. S. Gill; J. S. Bal

6
claims
11
verbatim quotes
8
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Studies were conducted to find out the effect of pruning severity and time on fruit and yield characters of ‘Umran’ ber. Eighteen-year old trees were pruned at fortnightly intervals, i.e. on 25 April, 9 May, 23 May and 6 June with seven pruning levels, i.e. retention of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 buds and no pruning. The per cent fruit set and retention increased with decrease in the pruning severity and recorded significantly higher in the unpruned trees and lower in trees pruned by retaining 2 buds. Both fruit set and retention increased with the delay in pruning upto 9 and 23 May, respectively. Maximum fruit size and weight were recorded in trees pruned between 9 and 23 May by retaining 6 buds. Fruit yield increased significantly with the decrease in pruning severity. It was concluded that ‘Umran’ ber trees pruned on 9 May retaining 6 buds yielded fruits of superior quality.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Less severe pruning increased fruit set and retention; unpruned trees were highest.

Treatment
decrease in the pruning severitye0
Outcome
fruit set and retentione0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
trees pruned by retaining 2 budse0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“per cent fruit set and retention increased with decrease in the pruning severity and recorded significantly higher in the unpruned trees and lower in trees pruned by retaining 2 buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–497 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying pruning increased fruit set until 9 May.

Treatment
delay in pruninge0
Outcome
fruit sete0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
9e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fruit set and retention increased with the delay in pruning upto 9 and 23 May, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 504–595 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Delaying pruning increased fruit retention until 23 May.

Treatment
delay in pruninge0
Outcome
retentione0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
23 Maye0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fruit set and retention increased with the delay in pruning upto 9 and 23 May, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 504–595 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning 9–23 May while retaining six buds maximized fruit size and weight.

Treatment
pruned between 9 and 23 May by retaining 6 budse0
Outcome
fruit size and weighte0
Direction
Maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum fruit size and weight were recorded in trees pruned between 9 and 23 May by retaining 6 buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 597–697 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit yield rose significantly as pruning severity decreased.

Treatment
decrease in pruning severitye0
Outcome
Fruit yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yield increased significantly with the decrease in pruning severity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–772 · show in text ↑
t0

“ber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–72 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning Umran on 9 May retaining six buds was recommended for superior fruit quality.

Material
‘Umran’e0
Outcome
pruned on 9 May retaining 6 budse0
Direction
superiore0

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

Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus mauritiana · TaxonEthel Aardvark · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“‘Umran’ ber trees pruned on 9 May retaining 6 buds yielded fruits of superior quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 796–881 · show in text ↑

pruning · yield · Ziziphus mauritiana (ber)Results agree

13 papers: 13 positive, 0 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.