Paper · 2012 · Zhongguo nongye Kexue

Effects of Different Thinning Methods on Illumination, Photosynthetic, Growth and Fruiting in Airtight Apple Orchard

Chao Lu

10
claims
28
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

【Objective】The aim of this study was to study the effects of different thinning methods on illumination,photosynthetic,growth and fruiting in airtight apple orchard,and then provide a theoretical basis for the renovation of the old orchard.【Method】The ‘Red Fuji’ apple airtight orchard was used in this study,and three different thinning methods,were interlaced thinning(A),septum strain thinning(B),every four trees cutting one in the line(C) and the control(CK),and then the related indexes of illumination,photosynthetic,growth and fruiting were determined and analyzed.【Result】The results showed that in different treatments,except CK,despite the different levels of growth of coverage rate of crown,the a performance was in the order of CKC BA,and light transmittance and intracoronal light transmittance were ABCCK.In the growing season,in different treatments,net photosynthetic rate(Pn),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and water use efficiency(WUE) were ABCCK,while intercellular CO2concentration(CI) was the the contrary;In terms of yield,three different treatments were significantly lower than the control per hectare in the first year,but the yield recovered the next year,and in the third year A and B were significantly higher than C and CK.The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK,shown in detail as A and B were significantly higher than C and CK.【Conclusion】The suitable thinning methods can fundamentally improve orchard illumination,leaves photosynthesis of leavs,fruit tree growth,yield and quality,although the yield can be decreased in a period.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thinning changed crown coverage, ranked CK > C > B > A.

Treatment
thinning methodse1
Outcome
performancee0
Comparator
CKe0

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the a performance was in the order of CKC BA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–748 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
e1

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Light transmittance and intracoronal light transmittance ranked A > B > C > CK.

Treatment
thinning methodse1
Outcome
light transmittance and intracoronal light transmittancee0
Comparator
CKe0

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“light transmittance and intracoronal light transmittance were ABCCK.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 753–821 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
e1

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net photosynthetic rate, carboxylation efficiency and water use efficiency ranked A > B > C > CK.

Treatment
thinning methodse1
Outcome
net photosynthetic rate(Pn),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and water use efficiency(WUE)e0
Comparator
CKe2

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“net photosynthetic rate(Pn),carboxylation efficiency(CE) and water use efficiency(WUE) were ABCCK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 867–964 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
e1

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
e2

“and the control(CK)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 444–463 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercellular CO2 concentration showed the opposite ranking from photosynthetic traits.

Treatment
thinning methodse1
Outcome
intercellular CO2concentration(CI)e0
Comparator
CKe2

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while intercellular CO2concentration(CI) was the the contrary”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1026 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
e1

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
e2

“and the control(CK)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 444–463 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All three thinning treatments had significantly lower per-hectare yield than the control in year one.

Treatment
three different treatmentse0
Outcome
per hectaree0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
first yeare0
Comparator
controle0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“three different treatments were significantly lower than the control per hectare in the first year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1143 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield recovered in the second year after thinning.

Treatment
thinning methodse1
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
recoverede0
Qualifier
next yeare0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but the yield recovered the next year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1144–1181 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
e1

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Thinning methods A and B yielded significantly more than C and CK in year three.

Treatment
A and Be0
Outcome
yielde3
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
third yeare0
Comparator
C and CKe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in the third year A and B were significantly higher than C and CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1186–1251 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
e3

“In terms of yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1044 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thinning raised colouring index, soluble sugars and titration acid relative to CK.

Treatment
different thinning methodse0
Outcome
colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acide0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
CKe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thinning raised the rate of high quality fruits relative to CK.

Treatment
different thinning methodse0
Outcome
rate of high quality fruitse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
CKe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The colouring index,soluble sugars,titration acid and the rate of high quality fruits of different thinning methods were higher than CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1252–1387 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

A and B had significantly higher fruit quality measures than C and CK.

Treatment
A and Be0
Outcome
highere0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
C and CKe0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“shown in detail as A and B were significantly higher than C and CK”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1388–1454 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple orchard”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 103–116 · show in text ↑

pruning · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

pruning · physiology: osmolytes · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

pruning · quality: general · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 5 positive, 7 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

pruning · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

147 papers: 100 positive, 47 negative or no effect

99 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

143 papers more in this group

See all 147 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.