Abstract
Effects of tree spacing (5x2 m, 5x2.5 m, 5x3 m, 5x3.5 m and 5x4 m) and pruning (8 buds/cane, 6 buds/cane and 4 buds/cane) on growth, physiological parameters, fruit yield and quality were studied in fig cv. Poona during 3rd and 4th years of planting. Results indicated that the fig responded more to tree spacing than the pruning levels in terms of morpho-physiological characters and yield. With increase in in-row tree spacing from 5x2.5 m to 5x4 m, the vegetative growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internodal length, tree spread, tree height and tree circumference and the fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree declined under different pruning levels and closer tree spacing of 5x2.5 m recorded higher values. Physiological parameters like photosynthesis rate and leaf water potential remained at higher levels under closer spacing as compared to the wider spacing under different pruning levels. The increased pruning levels from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/cane resulted in reduction of tree height while yield characters were marginally influenced by the pruning. The interaction effects between pruning and spacing levels were, however, non-significant. Under 5x2.5 m, the average fruit size and TSS recorded the highest values with no marked differences in acidity. The fruit yield calculated on per tree basis showed highest fruit number of 84.3-253.0 and 232.3-321.5 and fruit weight of 2.69-8.61 and 7.43-9.44 kg, respectively during 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2.5 m with 8 buds/cane pruning. The yield per hectare under various pruning levels recorded high values under the closer spacing of 5x2.5 m or 5x2.0 m with 8 buds/cane pruning. Overall results showed that 5x2.5 m tree spacing in combination with light pruning level of 8 buds/cane is ideal for achieving higher growth and yield in fig during 3rd and 4th year of planting.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Fig responded more to spacing than pruning for morphophysiological characters and yield.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“the fig responded more to tree spacing than the pruning levels in terms of morpho-physiological characters and yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Wider spacing reduced leaf number, shoot length and internodal length.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“With increase in in-row tree spacing from 5x2.5 m to 5x4 m, the vegetative growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internodal length, tree spread, tree height and tree circumference and the fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree declined”
Claim · model-written summary
Wider spacing reduced tree spread, height and circumference.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“With increase in in-row tree spacing from 5x2.5 m to 5x4 m, the vegetative growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internodal length, tree spread, tree height and tree circumference and the fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree declined”
Claim · model-written summary
Wider spacing reduced fruit number and fruit weight per tree.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“With increase in in-row tree spacing from 5x2.5 m to 5x4 m, the vegetative growth parameters like leaf number, shoot length, internodal length, tree spread, tree height and tree circumference and the fruit yield both in terms of fruit number and fruit weight per tree declined”
Claim · model-written summary
Closer spacing maintained higher photosynthesis rate and leaf water potential.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“Physiological parameters like photosynthesis rate and leaf water potential remained at higher levels under closer spacing as compared to the wider spacing under different pruning levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning from eight to four buds per cane reduced tree height.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“The increased pruning levels from 8 buds/cane to 4 buds/cane resulted in reduction of tree height”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning influenced yield characters only marginally.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“yield characters were marginally influenced by the pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing and pruning had no significant interaction.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“The interaction effects between pruning and spacing levels were, however, non-significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit size and TSS were highest at 5x2.5 m spacing.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“Under 5x2.5 m, the average fruit size and TSS recorded the highest values”
Claim · model-written summary
Acidity showed no marked spacing difference.
Not reportedSetting
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“with no marked differences in acidity”
e1“Under 5x2.5 m”
Claim · model-written summary
At 5x2.5 m with eight buds per cane, third-year fruit number per tree ranged from 84.3 to 253.0.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“highest fruit number of 84.3-253.0 and 232.3-321.5”
e1“during 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2.5 m with 8 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
At 5x2.5 m with eight buds per cane, fourth-year fruit number per tree ranged from 232.3 to 321.5.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“highest fruit number of 84.3-253.0 and 232.3-321.5”
e1“during 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2.5 m with 8 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
At 5x2.5 m with eight buds per cane, third-year fruit weight per tree ranged from 2.69 to 8.61 kg.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“fruit weight of 2.69-8.61 and 7.43-9.44 kg”
e1“during 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2.5 m with 8 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
At 5x2.5 m with eight buds per cane, fourth-year fruit weight per tree ranged from 7.43 to 9.44 kg.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“fruit weight of 2.69-8.61 and 7.43-9.44 kg”
e1“during 3rd and 4th year of planting under closer spacing of 5x2.5 m with 8 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield per hectare was high under 5x2.5 m spacing with eight buds per cane.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“The yield per hectare under various pruning levels recorded high values under the closer spacing of 5x2.5 m or 5x2.0 m with 8 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield per hectare was high under 5x2.0 m spacing with eight buds per cane.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“The yield per hectare under various pruning levels recorded high values under the closer spacing of 5x2.5 m or 5x2.0 m with 8 buds/cane pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 5x2.5 m spacing with eight buds per cane for higher growth and yield in young fig trees.
Verbatim
t0“fig (Ficus carica L.)”
e0“5x2.5 m tree spacing in combination with light pruning level of 8 buds/cane is ideal for achieving higher growth and yield in fig during 3rd and 4th year of planting”
The same questions in other papers
density · physiology: photosynthesis · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- 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.