Abstract
This investigation was undertaken to determine the response of pear fruit growth and quality to shade imposed during development. Whole branches of mature `Bartlett' trees on P. communis L. growing at the Experimental Farm on a sandy loam soil were covered with a 20% transmission black, neutral-density shadecloth from 43 days after full bloom (DFB) to 138 DFB, during the 1995–96 growing season. Two comparable branches on each of five uniform trees were selected for good exposure and one branch of each pair was shaded. Fruit diameters were measured at 2-weekly intervals. Pulp pressure and soluble solids concentration (SSC) were measured at harvest time on 31 Jan. Specific leaf mass (SLM) also was recorded (leaf dry mass was obtained by drying discs at 80°C). Relative fruit growth rates were initially similar between light regimes, becoming lower for the shaded fruit at the subsequent measurements. Light exposure induced a 8.76% increase in final fruit diameter (66.40 mm); this increment would appear to depend on carbohydrate availability, since highly significant differences at P ≤ 0.01 emerged in the spur SLM of the exposed and covered branches (7.68 vs. 5.79 mg·cm –2 , respectively). SCC was similar for the two light environments, while flesh firmness was 8.80% higher in the shaded fruit. Our results indicate that solar radiation deprival had clearly detrimental effects on fruit growth and maturity, and they provide a basis for improving pruning and training practices in the future.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Relative fruit growth rates were initially similar between light regimes.
- Taxon
- Pear
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communist0 - Treatment
- light regimese1
- Outcome
- Relative fruit growth ratese1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Qualifier
- initiallye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e1“Relative fruit growth rates were initially similar between light regimes, becoming lower for the shaded fruit at the subsequent measurements”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative fruit growth rates of shaded fruit became lower at the subsequent measurements.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- shadede1
- Outcome
- Relative fruit growth ratese1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Qualifier
- at the subsequent measurementse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e1“Relative fruit growth rates were initially similar between light regimes, becoming lower for the shaded fruit at the subsequent measurements”
Claim · model-written summary
Light exposure increased final fruit diameter by 8.76%, to 66.40 mm.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- Light exposuree2
- Outcome
- final fruit diametere2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 8.76%e2
- Qualifier
- 66.40 mme2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e2“Light exposure induced a 8.76% increase in final fruit diameter (66.40 mm)”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in final fruit diameter would appear to depend on carbohydrate availability.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Outcome
- incremente3
- Qualifier
- carbohydrate availabilitye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e2“Light exposure induced a 8.76% increase in final fruit diameter (66.40 mm)”
e3“this increment would appear to depend on carbohydrate availability”
Claim · model-written summary
Exposed branches had higher spur SLM than covered branches (7.68 vs. 5.79), with P ≤ 0.01.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Organ / stage
- spure4
- Treatment
- exposede4
- Outcome
- spur SLMe4
- Direction
- higherinferrede4
- Value
- 7.68 vs. 5.79e4
- Qualifier
- P ≤ 0.01e4
- Comparator
- coverede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e4“highly significant differences at P ≤ 0.01 emerged in the spur SLM of the exposed and covered branches (7.68 vs. 5.79”
Claim · model-written summary
SCC was similar for the two light environments.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- two light environmentse5
- Outcome
- SCCe5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e5“SCC was similar for the two light environments, while flesh firmness was 8.80% higher in the shaded fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Flesh firmness was 8.80% higher in shaded fruit.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- shaded fruite5
- Outcome
- flesh firmnesse5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 8.80%e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e5“SCC was similar for the two light environments, while flesh firmness was 8.80% higher in the shaded fruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Solar radiation deprival had clearly detrimental effects on fruit growth and maturity.
- Taxon
- PearPyrus communist0
- Treatment
- solar radiation deprivale6
- Outcome
- fruit growth and maturitye6
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede6
- Qualifier
- clearly detrimental effectse6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Effect of Shade on Pear Fruit Growth and Quality”
e6“solar radiation deprival had clearly detrimental effects on fruit growth and maturity”
The same questions in other papers
light · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →light · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →shade · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.