Abstract
SummaryThe apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production. The experiment, carried out over a ten- year period compared two planting densities at 1666 and 3333 trees per ha. Tree vigour differences between rootstocks were measured in term of trunk growth, tree volume, weight of branches pruned off and final weight of the above-ground parts of the trees. Fruit production is presented both as total yield and as the weight of first class fruit. Fruit colour development is also shown. Cropping efficiency is calculated and presented in relation to the different vigour measurements. The results confirm that ‘Discovery’ is slow to come into production. M.9 was the most productive rootstock, but due to vigour differences MM.106 gave the same yields per tree, although the latter had the lower yield efficiency. M.26 performed poorly; its vigour was similar to M.9 but it produced the lowest yields.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Discovery apple is slow to come into production on these rootstocks.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Material
- Discoverye0
- Outcome
- slow to come into productione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production”
e5“is slow to come into production”
Claim · model-written summary
M.9 was the most productive apple rootstock for Discovery apple, compared with M.26 and MM.106.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- M.9e1
- Treatment
- rootstocke1
- Outcome
- most productivee1
- Direction
- most productivee1
- Comparator
- M.26, and MM.106e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production”
e1“M.9 was the most productive rootstock”
Claim · model-written summary
MM.106 gave the same yield per tree as M.9.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- MM.106e2
- Treatment
- rootstocke1
- Outcome
- yields per treee2
- Direction
- samee2
- Comparator
- M.9e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production”
e1“M.9 was the most productive rootstock”
e2“MM.106 gave the same yields per tree”
Claim · model-written summary
MM.106 had a lower yield efficiency than M.9.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- MM.106e0
- Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- yield efficiencye3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Comparator
- M.9e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production”
e1“M.9 was the most productive rootstock”
e3“the latter had the lower yield efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
M.26 had a vigour similar to M.9.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- M.26e4
- Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- vigoure4
- Direction
- similare4
- Comparator
- M.9e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production”
e4“M.26 performed poorly; its vigour was similar to M.9 but it produced the lowest yields”
Claim · model-written summary
M.26 produced the lowest yields among the tested rootstocks.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- M.26e4
- Treatment
- rootstocke0
- Outcome
- yieldse4
- Direction
- loweste4
- Comparator
- M.9e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple rootstocks M.9, M.26, and MM.106 were evaluated for their efficiency in bringing ‘Discovery’ apple trees into production”
e4“M.26 performed poorly; its vigour was similar to M.9 but it produced the lowest yields”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →grafting · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.