Abstract
The effects of three different irrigation ways(furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic film,seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree base,flood irrigation around the tree base) on the growth and development,yield and quality of apple were studied.In comparison with flood irrigation around the tree base,furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic film,seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree base could significantly increase the length of new tip and spring tip(P 0.05),and enhance the leaf area,ratio of leaf weight to leaf area,and chlorophyll content(P 0.01).There were no significant differences in the width of new tip,number of new tips per plant,length of autumn tip,proportion of autumn tips to new tips,and yield among 3 kinds of irrigation ways.Seeping irrigation could obviously increase the number of root system,especially the number of the roots less than 2 mm in diameter.The fruit quality of apple in the treatments of furrow irrigation and seeping irrigation was generally better than that in flood irrigation treatment.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow irrigation with a film-covered ridge significantly increased new and spring tip lengths relative to flood irrigation.
- Treatment
- furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic filme0
- Outcome
- length of new tip and spring tipe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation around the tree basee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In comparison with flood irrigation around the tree base,furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic film,seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree base could significantly increase the length of new tip and spring tip(P 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Buried-jar seeping irrigation significantly increased new and spring tip lengths relative to flood irrigation.
- Treatment
- seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree basee0
- Outcome
- length of new tip and spring tipe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation around the tree basee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In comparison with flood irrigation around the tree base,furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic film,seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree base could significantly increase the length of new tip and spring tip(P 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow irrigation increased apple leaf area, leaf weight to area ratio and chlorophyll content relative to flood irrigation.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic filme0
- Outcome
- leaf area,ratio of leaf weight to leaf area,and chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- enhancee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“furrow irrigation with the ridge covered by plastic film,seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree base could significantly increase the length of new tip and spring tip(P 0.05),and enhance the leaf area,ratio of leaf weight to leaf area,and chlorophyll content(P 0.01)”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Seeping irrigation increased apple leaf area, leaf weight to area ratio and chlorophyll content relative to flood irrigation.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree basee0
- Outcome
- leaf area,ratio of leaf weight to leaf area,and chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- enhancee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seeping irrigation with buried jar around the tree base could significantly increase the length of new tip and spring tip(P 0.05),and enhance the leaf area,ratio of leaf weight to leaf area,and chlorophyll content(P 0.01)”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
New tip width, tip number, autumn tip length and proportion, and yield did not differ significantly among three irrigation methods.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- width of new tip,number of new tips per plant,length of autumn tipe0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Qualifier
- and yield among 3 kinds of irrigation wayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in the width of new tip,number of new tips per plant,length of autumn tip,proportion of autumn tips to new tips,and yield among 3 kinds of irrigation ways”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Seeping irrigation increased root number, especially roots under 2 mm diameter.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Seeping irrigatione0
- Outcome
- number of root systeme0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- roots less than 2 mm in diametere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seeping irrigation could obviously increase the number of root system,especially the number of the roots less than 2 mm in diameter”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Furrow irrigation produced generally better apple fruit quality than flood irrigation.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- furrow irrigatione0
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fruit quality of apple in the treatments of furrow irrigation and seeping irrigation was generally better than that in flood irrigation treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Seeping irrigation produced generally better apple fruit quality than flood irrigation.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- seeping irrigatione0
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fruit quality of apple in the treatments of furrow irrigation and seeping irrigation was generally better than that in flood irrigation treatment”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 papers →mulching · physiology: pigments · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
irrigation · quality: grain · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →irrigation · physiology: pigments · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.