Paper · 2017 · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Effect of organic and biological fertilizers on pomegranate trees: yield, cracking, sunburning and infestation to pomegranate fruit moth Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)

Ali Olyaie Torshiz; Seyed Hossein Goldansaz; Babak Motesharezadeh; et al.

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
14
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

To investigate the effect of different fertilizers on yield and health related traits of pomegranate fruit, a field experiment was carried out during 2014 and 2015 seasons on six years old pomegranate trees cv. ‘Bajestani’ growing in sandy loam soil under drip irrigation system in Khalilabad city, Khorasan, Iran. Organic fertilizers including: cow manure (25 kg/tree), vermicompost (5 kg/tree), and granulate humic (2 kg/tree) were applied without or with biofertilizers (azetobarvar, phosphobarvar and potabarvar at 1 liter/tree) by placement method. Results showed that plants treated with combination of organic and biofertilizers had higher yield and lower fruit drop than plants treated with organic fertilizers individually. The lowest fruit cracking (7.5%, 2.25%) as well as fruit infestation with Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (27.5%, 25.34%) were observed in the plants treated with both biofertilizers and humic in 2014 and 2015, respectively. The most infestation to E. ceratoniae was observed in control treatment (38.07%, 31.44%) in both years, respectively. Fruit sunburn was not affected by nutrition of any type in both years. Results of leaf analysis revealed that plants treated by a combination of biofertilizer and humic had higher levels of macro and micronutrients compared with untreated plants. Altogether, our results suggest that biofertilizer in combination with organic fertilizers, especially granular humic, could be used in pomegranate orchards management to improve pomegranate yield, as well as to prevent crop losses resulting from cracking, nutrient deficiency and E. ceratoniae infestation.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined organic and biofertilizers increased pomegranate yield versus organic fertilizers alone.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Treatment
combination of organic and biofertilizerse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
organic fertilizers individuallye0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“plants treated with combination of organic and biofertilizers had higher yield and lower fruit drop than plants treated with organic fertilizers individually.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–732 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined organic and biofertilizers reduced pomegranate fruit drop versus organic fertilizers alone.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Treatment
combination of organic and biofertilizerse0
Outcome
fruit drope0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
organic fertilizers individuallye0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“plants treated with combination of organic and biofertilizers had higher yield and lower fruit drop than plants treated with organic fertilizers individually.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–732 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizers with humic produced the lowest fruit cracking, 7.5% and 2.25% in 2014 and 2015.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Treatment
both biofertilizers and humice0
Outcome
fruit crackinge0
Direction
loweste0
Value
7.5%, 2.25%e0
Qualifier
2014 and 2015e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“The lowest fruit cracking (7.5%, 2.25%) as well as fruit infestation with Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (27.5%, 25.34%) were observed in the plants treated with both biofertilizers and humic in 2014 and 2015, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 733–957 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizers with humic produced the lowest Ectomyelois ceratoniae fruit infestation, 27.5% and 25.34% in 2014 and 2015.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Treatment
both biofertilizers and humice0
Interactor
Ectomyelois ceratoniaeEctomyelois ceratoniaee0pest
Outcome
fruit infestation with Ectomyelois ceratoniaee0
Direction
loweste0
Value
27.5%, 25.34%e0
Qualifier
2014 and 2015e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ectomyelois ceratoniae
Ectomyelois ceratoniae · InteractorRen Y, Yang L · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“The lowest fruit cracking (7.5%, 2.25%) as well as fruit infestation with Ectomyelois ceratoniae (Zeller) (27.5%, 25.34%) were observed in the plants treated with both biofertilizers and humic in 2014 and 2015, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 733–957 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control fruit had the highest E. ceratoniae infestation, 38.07% and 31.44% in the two years.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Treatment
control treatmente0
Interactor
E. ceratoniaeEctomyelois ceratoniaee0pest
Outcome
infestation to E. ceratoniaee0
Direction
moste0
Value
38.07%, 31.44%e0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ectomyelois ceratoniae
Ectomyelois ceratoniae · InteractorRen Y, Yang L · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“The most infestation to E. ceratoniae was observed in control treatment (38.07%, 31.44%) in both years, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–1075 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit sunburn was unaffected by nutrition in either year.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Treatment
nutrition of any typee0
Outcome
Fruit sunburne0
Direction
not affectede0
Qualifier
both yearse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“Fruit sunburn was not affected by nutrition of any type in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1146 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizer plus humic increased leaf macro and micronutrient levels relative to untreated plants.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Organ / stage
leafe1
Treatment
combination of biofertilizer and humice0
Outcome
levels of macro and micronutrientse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
untreated plantse0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“plants treated by a combination of biofertilizer and humic had higher levels of macro and micronutrients compared with untreated plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1186–1322 · show in text ↑
e1

“Results of leaf analysis revealed that”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1147–1185 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggested combining biofertilizer with organic fertilizers, especially granular humic, to improve orchard yield and reduce losses.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatumt0
Interactor
E. ceratoniaeEctomyelois ceratoniaee0pest
Outcome
could be used in pomegranate orchards management to improve pomegranate yielde0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ectomyelois ceratoniae
Ectomyelois ceratoniae · InteractorRen Y, Yang L · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“pomegranate trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 48–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“biofertilizer in combination with organic fertilizers, especially granular humic, could be used in pomegranate orchards management to improve pomegranate yield, as well as to prevent crop losses resulting from cracking, nutrient deficiency and E. ceratoniae infestation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1360–1630 · show in text ↑

inoculation · yield · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 8 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

other · Ectomyelois ceratoniae · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · Ectomyelois ceratoniae · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

other · molecular: metabolites · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.