Abstract
Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block. One block in each of the Nelson and Hastings districts were evaluated for three consecutive years, 1992-1994. At harvest, fruit from light cropping trees were larger, lower in calcium, higher in potassium, variable in magnesium, higher in flesh firmness, soluble solids, background colour and starch pattern index. After three months storage at 0.5°C and 7 days at 18°C the differences in flesh firmness, soluble solids, and background colour were maintained with similar rates of movement except for soluble solids in light crop fruit. Fruit from light cropping trees developed higher levels of disorders (bitter pit, lenticel blotch, core flush, and Braebum browning disorder), reducing the proportion of sound fruit by up to 35 % compared to fruit from trees with standard croploads. Sensory evaluation rated fruit from light cropping trees unacceptable because of textural changes, dryness, and atypical flavour. The differences identified were consistent between orchards. Fruit from light cropping trees decreased in quality and increased with disorder levels, especially senescent breakdown, as harvest date advanced, and or storage time increased from 3 to 5 months.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit from light-cropping trees were larger at harvest.
- Taxon
- APPLE
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- light cropping treese1
- Outcome
- fruite2
- Direction
- largere2
- Comparator
- trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same blocke1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block”
e2“At harvest, fruit from light cropping trees were larger”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit had lower calcium.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- light cropping treese1
- Outcome
- calciume2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Comparator
- trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same blocke1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block”
e2“lower in calcium”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit had higher potassium.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- light cropping treese1
- Outcome
- potassiume2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same blocke1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block”
e2“higher in potassium”
Claim · model-written summary
Magnesium varied in light-crop fruit.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- magnesiume1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“variable in magnesium”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit had higher firmness, soluble solids and background colour at harvest.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- light cropping treese1
- Outcome
- flesh firmness, soluble solids, background coloure2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same blocke1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block”
e2“higher in flesh firmness, soluble solids, background colour”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit had higher starch pattern index.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- light cropping treese1
- Outcome
- starch pattern indexe2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same blocke1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block”
e2“higher in flesh firmness, soluble solids, background colour and starch pattern index”
Claim · model-written summary
Firmness, soluble-solids and colour differences persisted after storage.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- differences in flesh firmness, soluble solids, and background colour were maintainede1
- Qualifier
- After three months storage at 0.5°C and 7 days at 18°Ce1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“After three months storage at 0.5°C and 7 days at 18°C the differences in flesh firmness, soluble solids, and background colour were maintained”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit had higher disorder levels and up to 35% less sound fruit.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- light cropping treese2
- Outcome
- proportion of sound fruite2
- Direction
- reducinge2
- Value
- 35 %e2
- Comparator
- trees with standard croploadse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees were compared to fruit from trees with a crop load typical of other trees within the same block”
e2“Fruit from light cropping trees developed higher levels of disorders (bitter pit, lenticel blotch, core flush, and Braebum browning disorder), reducing the proportion of sound fruit by up to 35 % compared to fruit from trees with standard croploads”
Claim · model-written summary
Sensory evaluation rated light-crop fruit unacceptable due to texture, dryness and flavour.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- unacceptable because of textural changes, dryness, and atypical flavoure1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Sensory evaluation rated fruit from light cropping trees unacceptable because of textural changes, dryness, and atypical flavour”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit quality declined as harvest date or storage time increased.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- fruite1
- Outcome
- qualitye1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Qualifier
- as harvest date advanced, and or storage time increased from 3 to 5 monthse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees decreased in quality and increased with disorder levels, especially senescent breakdown, as harvest date advanced, and or storage time increased from 3 to 5 months”
Claim · model-written summary
Light-crop fruit disorder levels increased with later harvest or longer storage.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Organ / stage
- fruite1
- Outcome
- disorder levels, especially senescent breakdowne1
- Direction
- increasede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“APPLE FRUIT”
e1“Fruit from light cropping trees decreased in quality and increased with disorder levels, especially senescent breakdown, as harvest date advanced, and or storage time increased from 3 to 5 months”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.