Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of calcium fertilizer treatments on fruit quality and distribution of calcium in apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Idared). Four treatments were tested: application of calcium nitrate through the fertigation system, foliar application of calcium nitrate, application of calcium oxide through soil, and control treatment (without calcium fertilizer). In the experiment, freshly picked apples harvested in Gorazde region (eastern Bosnia) in September 2018 were analyzed. The highest impact to increase calcium content in apple had a treatment where calcium nitrate was added through the fertigation system. It was the result of the balance between calcium and nitrogen in the applied solution as well as the fertigation capacity to timely deliver nutrition to the main rooting zone. Calcium distribution was not uniform within the fruit: the highest content was found in the apple core, decreasing in the apple flesh, and rising again in the apple skin, regardless of fertilizer treatment. There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple, indicating that these treatments were insufficient in order to improve the examined parameters of fruit quality.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nd. 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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium nitrate through fertigation produced the greatest increase in apple calcium content.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Organ / stage
- applee0
- Treatment
- calcium nitrate was added through the fertigation systeme0
- Outcome
- calcium contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest impact to increase calcium content in apple had a treatment where calcium nitrate was added through the fertigation system”
e1“The highest impact to increase calcium content in apple had a treatment where calcium nitrate was added through the fertigation system”
e2“The highest impact to increase calcium content in apple had a treatment where calcium nitrate was added through the fertigation system”
t0“Idared apples”
t1“The highest impact to increase calcium content in apple had a treatment where calcium nitrate was added through the fertigation system”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium content was highest in the core, lower in flesh, and rose again in skin regardless of fertilizer treatment.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Organ / stage
- fruite0
- Outcome
- Calcium distributione0
- Direction
- not uniforme0
- Qualifier
- regardless of fertilizer treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calcium distribution was not uniform within the fruit: the highest content was found in the apple core, decreasing in the apple flesh, and rising again in the apple skin, regardless of fertilizer treatment”
e1“Calcium distribution was not uniform within the fruit: the highest content was found in the apple core, decreasing in the apple flesh, and rising again in the apple skin, regardless of fertilizer treatment”
e2“Calcium distribution was not uniform within the fruit: the highest content was found in the apple core, decreasing in the apple flesh, and rising again in the apple skin, regardless of fertilizer treatment”
t0“Idared apples”
t1“Calcium distribution was not uniform within the fruit: the highest content was found in the apple core, decreasing in the apple flesh, and rising again in the apple skin, regardless of fertilizer treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium fertilizer treatments did not differ in apple total soluble solids.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- calcium fertilizer treatmentse0
- Outcome
- total soluble solidse0
- Direction
- no differencee0
- Comparator
- calcium fertilizer treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
e1“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
e2“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
t0“Idared apples”
t1“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium fertilizer treatments did not differ in apple titratable acidity.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- calcium fertilizer treatmentse0
- Outcome
- titratable aciditye0
- Direction
- no differencee0
- Comparator
- calcium fertilizer treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
e1“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
e2“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
t0“Idared apples”
t1“There was no difference among calcium fertilizer treatments in total soluble solids and titratable acidity of apple”
The same questions in other papers
calcium nitrate · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →calcium atom · quality: sugar starch · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 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.