Paper · 2018 · Egyptian Journal of Soil Science

Impact of Different Sources of Natural, Mineral and Bio-Fertilizers on Apple Trees Performance, Growth And Yield on Sandy Soil

Nevine Taha; Naglaa Shakweer; R. El-Shahat

9
claims
17
verbatim quotes
7
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This study was carried out during two successive seasons 2014 and 2015 on 8-year-old of “Anna” apple trees budded on Balady rootstock and planted at 4 x 4 m apart on sandy soil at South El-Tahrir in a private farm under drip irrigation system. Addition of natural elements compound (NEC) as soil application beside other biofertilizers extract was investigated as compared with the mineral fertilization.Biofertilizers markedly affected soil organic matter, pH and E.C. as their values changed with Azolla, Cyanobacteria individually and/or in combination. The higher increases in nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and magnesium content in apple leaves nutrients were observed with the treatment (Azolla + Cyanobacteria and natural elements). Biofertilizer extracts alone or in combination with natural elements compounds (NEC) increased leaf area, leaf fresh weight, total leaf chlorophyll content, fruit set %, and yield. Foliar application of Cyanobacteria reduced fruit drop than foliated by Azolla in the two seasons. Treating trees by combination of biofertilizer and NEC resulted in the highest fruit firmness, TSS %, vitamin C and total fruit sugar as compared with the other treatments. During cold storage, results showed, that the least weight loss percentage was recorded by NEC + Cyanobacteria and Azolla treatment in the two seasons. While the highest acidity % was recorded by control and NEC treatments.Generally, application of biofertilizers extract (Azolla, Cyanobacteria and their mixture) with natural element compound (NEC) improved growth, yield and fruit quality at harvest and after storability process. In addition the increase in microbial activity in the soil which may reduce additions of inorganic fertilizers.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azolla and Cyanobacteria treatments changed soil organic matter, pH and electrical conductivity.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Azolla, Cyanobacteria individually and/or in combinatione0
Outcome
soil organic matter, pH and E.C.e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Biofertilizers markedly affected soil organic matter, pH and E.C. as their values changed with Azolla, Cyanobacteria individually and/or in combination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 404–555 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined Azolla, Cyanobacteria and natural elements gave higher apple-leaf N, P, K and Mg content.

Treatment
Azolla + Cyanobacteria and natural elementse0
Outcome
nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and magnesium content in apple leaves nutrientse0
Direction
higher increasese0

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

“The higher increases in nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and magnesium content in apple leaves nutrients were observed with the treatment (Azolla + Cyanobacteria and natural elements)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 557–740 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizer extracts increased leaf area, leaf weight and chlorophyll.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Biofertilizer extracts alone or in combination with natural elements compounds (NEC)e0
Outcome
leaf area, leaf fresh weight, total leaf chlorophyll contente0
Direction
increasede0

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

“Biofertilizer extracts alone or in combination with natural elements compounds (NEC) increased leaf area, leaf fresh weight, total leaf chlorophyll content, fruit set %, and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 742–921 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizer extracts increased fruit set and yield.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Biofertilizer extracts alone or in combination with natural elements compounds (NEC)e0
Outcome
fruit set %, and yielde0
Direction
increasede0

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

“Biofertilizer extracts alone or in combination with natural elements compounds (NEC) increased leaf area, leaf fresh weight, total leaf chlorophyll content, fruit set %, and yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 742–921 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cyanobacteria foliar application reduced fruit drop relative to Azolla.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Foliar application of Cyanobacteriae0
Outcome
fruit drope0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
Azollae0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar application of Cyanobacteria reduced fruit drop than foliated by Azolla in the two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–1020 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizer and NEC combination gave the highest firmness, soluble solids, vitamin C and sugar.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
combination of biofertilizer and NECe0
Outcome
fruit firmness, TSS %, vitamin C and total fruit sugare0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
the other treatmentse0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Treating trees by combination of biofertilizer and NEC resulted in the highest fruit firmness, TSS %, vitamin C and total fruit sugar as compared with the other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1193 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NEC with Cyanobacteria and Azolla gave the least storage weight loss.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
NEC + Cyanobacteria and Azolla treatmente0
Outcome
weight loss percentagee0
Direction
leaste0

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

“the least weight loss percentage was recorded by NEC + Cyanobacteria and Azolla treatment in the two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1237–1345 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control and NEC treatments gave the highest acidity.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
control and NEC treatmentse0
Outcome
acidity %e0
Direction
higheste0

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

“the highest acidity % was recorded by control and NEC treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1353–1417 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microbial activity increased.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Outcome
microbial activity in the soile0
Direction
increasee0

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 addition the increase in microbial activity in the soil which may reduce additions of inorganic fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1628–1738 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple Trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–82 · show in text ↑

botanical · physiology: pigments · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

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

15 papers: 14 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

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

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

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

141 papers: 107 positive, 34 negative or no effect

106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

137 papers more in this group

See all 141 papers →

inoculation · quality: sugar starch · Malus domestica (apple)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.