Abstract
SummaryAn in-line grading system, with near infrared (NIR) spectrometry and weigh-cell capability, was used to evaluate the total soluble solids (TSS) contents and fresh weights (FW) of all fruit from peach, nectarine and plum trees subjected to four fruit-thinning protocols. The grading platform achieved root mean squared errors of predictions for TSS of < 0.8%, and for FWs of 0.5 g. Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area resulted in an increase in fruit TSS content of approx. 2% for peach and nectarine, and 0.5% TSS for plum, and an increase in fruit FW by an average of 30 g for nectarine, 40 g for peach, and 10 g for plum fruit. Fruits harvested from the upper tree canopy (> 3 m height) were higher in TSS contents compared to lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruit (3% increase in TSS for peach, 2% for nectarine, and 1.5% for plum). Future work to introduce NIR technology into agronomic programmes aimed at improving the TSS contents of fruit is discussed.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
The NIR grading platform predicted fruit TSS of peach, nectarine and plum with a root mean squared error below 0.8%.
- Taxon
- peach, nectarine and plum
Prunus domestica
Prunus persicaPrunus persica var. nucipersicae1 - Outcome
- root mean squared errors of predictionse2
- Value
- < 0.8%e2
- Qualifier
- for TSSe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“evaluate the total soluble solids (TSS) contents and fresh weights (FW) of all fruit from peach, nectarine and plum trees”
e2“The grading platform achieved root mean squared errors of predictions for TSS of < 0.8%, and for FWs of 0.5 g”
Claim · model-written summary
The NIR grading platform predicted fruit fresh weight with a root mean squared error of 0.5 g.
- Taxon
- peach, nectarine and plumPrunus domesticaPrunus persicaPrunus persica var. nucipersicae1
- Outcome
- root mean squared errors of predictionse2
- Value
- 0.5 ge2
- Qualifier
- for FWse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“evaluate the total soluble solids (TSS) contents and fresh weights (FW) of all fruit from peach, nectarine and plum trees”
e2“The grading platform achieved root mean squared errors of predictions for TSS of < 0.8%, and for FWs of 0.5 g”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning to one fruit per cm2 trunk area raised peach fruit TSS by approximately 2%.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae2
- Treatment
- Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Outcome
- fruit TSS contente2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- approx. 2%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area”
e2“an increase in fruit TSS content of approx. 2% for peach and nectarine, and 0.5% TSS for plum”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning to one fruit per cm2 trunk area raised nectarine fruit TSS by approximately 2%.
- Taxon
- nectarinePrunus persica var. nucipersicae2
- Treatment
- Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Outcome
- fruit TSS contente2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- approx. 2%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area”
e2“an increase in fruit TSS content of approx. 2% for peach and nectarine, and 0.5% TSS for plum”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning to one fruit per cm2 trunk area raised plum fruit TSS by 0.5%.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae2
- Treatment
- Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Outcome
- fruit TSS contente2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 0.5%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area”
e2“an increase in fruit TSS content of approx. 2% for peach and nectarine, and 0.5% TSS for plum”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning to one fruit per cm2 trunk area increased nectarine fruit fresh weight by an average of 30 g.
- Taxon
- nectarinePrunus persica var. nucipersicae3
- Treatment
- Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Outcome
- fruit FWe3
- Direction
- increasee3
- Value
- 30 ge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area”
e3“an increase in fruit FW by an average of 30 g for nectarine, 40 g for peach, and 10 g for plum”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning to one fruit per cm2 trunk area increased peach fruit fresh weight by an average of 40 g.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae3
- Treatment
- Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Outcome
- fruit FWe3
- Direction
- increasee3
- Value
- 40 ge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area”
e3“an increase in fruit FW by an average of 30 g for nectarine, 40 g for peach, and 10 g for plum”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning to one fruit per cm2 trunk area increased plum fruit fresh weight by an average of 10 g.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae3
- Treatment
- Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Outcome
- fruit FWe3
- Direction
- increasee3
- Value
- 10 ge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thinning to one fruit cm–2 trunk cross-sectional area”
e3“an increase in fruit FW by an average of 30 g for nectarine, 40 g for peach, and 10 g for plum”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit from the upper canopy of peach trees had about 3% higher TSS than lower-canopy fruit.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Outcome
- TSS contentse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3%e1
- Comparator
- lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruite1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fruits harvested from the upper tree canopy (> 3 m height) were higher in TSS contents compared to lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruit (3% increase in TSS for peach, 2% for nectarine, and 1.5% for plum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit from the upper canopy of nectarine trees had about 2% higher TSS than lower-canopy fruit.
- Taxon
- nectarinePrunus persica var. nucipersicae1
- Outcome
- TSS contentse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 2%e1
- Comparator
- lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruite1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fruits harvested from the upper tree canopy (> 3 m height) were higher in TSS contents compared to lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruit (3% increase in TSS for peach, 2% for nectarine, and 1.5% for plum)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit from the upper canopy of plum trees had about 1.5% higher TSS than lower-canopy fruit.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Outcome
- TSS contentse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 1.5%e1
- Comparator
- lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruite1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fruits harvested from the upper tree canopy (> 3 m height) were higher in TSS contents compared to lower (0 – 1.5 m) canopy fruit (3% increase in TSS for peach, 2% for nectarine, and 1.5% for plum)”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
60 papers more in this group
See all 64 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · Prunus domestica (plum)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →pruning · growth · Prunus domestica (plum)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 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.