Abstract
The present investigation was carried out at ICAR-CIAH, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India during 2017 to 2019 to regulate crop production in pomegranate at the desired period with higher number of bisexual flower for higher quality fruit yield and to minimize fruit splitting through water stress, pruning and ethrel application. Pooled data analysis revealed that horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactions significantly improved plant volume, bisexual flower number, maturity index, fruit yield with significant reduction in fruit splitting, mite and fungal spot incidence. Among different treatment combinations, maximum canopy volume, number of bisexual flowers, maturity index, fruit yield and lower fruit splitting were recorded (8.56 m3, 85.11 plant-1, 47.81, 124.01 q ha-1 and 1.87 kg plant-1) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1 as compared to absolute control (3.41 m3, 75.62 plant-1, 33.35, 85.66 q ha-1 and 2.41 kg plant-1), respectively. The mite and fungal spot incidence were recorded minimum (4.72 and 8.50%) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 3 ml l-1 application in comparison to maximum recorded in absolute control (29.73 and 33.68%), respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning with ethrel 2 ml l-1 treatment significantly improved quality fruit yield with higher number of bisexual flowers and reduced fruit splitting through induction of flowering and fruit growth during optimal climatic conditions.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatments significantly increased plant volume, bisexual flowers, maturity index and yield.
- Taxon
- Pomegranate
Punica granatumt0 - Treatment
- horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactionse0
- Outcome
- plant volume, bisexual flower number, maturity indexe0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactions significantly improved plant volume, bisexual flower number, maturity index, fruit yield with significant reduction in fruit splitting, mite and fungal spot incidence.”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatments significantly increased fruit yield.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactionse0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactions significantly improved plant volume, bisexual flower number, maturity index, fruit yield with significant reduction in fruit splitting, mite and fungal spot incidence.”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatments significantly reduced fruit splitting.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactionse0
- Outcome
- fruit splittinge0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactions significantly improved plant volume, bisexual flower number, maturity index, fruit yield with significant reduction in fruit splitting, mite and fungal spot incidence.”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatments significantly reduced mite and fungal spot incidence.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactionse0
- Outcome
- mite and fungal spot incidencee0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“horticultural interventions, chemical treatments and their interactions significantly improved plant volume, bisexual flower number, maturity index, fruit yield with significant reduction in fruit splitting, mite and fungal spot incidence.”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2 ml l-1 ethrel combination produced maximum canopy volume of 8.56 m3 versus 3.41 m3 control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1e0
- Outcome
- canopy volumee0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 8.56 m3e0
- Qualifier
- 3.41 m3e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum canopy volume, number of bisexual flowers, maturity index, fruit yield and lower fruit splitting were recorded (8.56 m3, 85.11 plant-1, 47.81, 124.01 q ha-1 and 1.87 kg plant-1) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1 as compared to absolute control (3.41 m3, 75.62 plant-1, 33.35, 85.66 q ha-1 and 2.41 kg plant-1)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2 ml l-1 combination gave 85.11 bisexual flowers per plant versus 75.62 control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1e0
- Outcome
- number of bisexual flowerse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 85.11 plant-1e0
- Qualifier
- 75.62 plant-1e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum canopy volume, number of bisexual flowers, maturity index, fruit yield and lower fruit splitting were recorded (8.56 m3, 85.11 plant-1, 47.81, 124.01 q ha-1 and 1.87 kg plant-1) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1 as compared to absolute control (3.41 m3, 75.62 plant-1, 33.35, 85.66 q ha-1 and 2.41 kg plant-1)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2 ml l-1 combination gave maturity index 47.81 versus 33.35 control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1e0
- Outcome
- maturity indexe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 47.81e0
- Qualifier
- 33.35e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum canopy volume, number of bisexual flowers, maturity index, fruit yield and lower fruit splitting were recorded (8.56 m3, 85.11 plant-1, 47.81, 124.01 q ha-1 and 1.87 kg plant-1) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1 as compared to absolute control (3.41 m3, 75.62 plant-1, 33.35, 85.66 q ha-1 and 2.41 kg plant-1)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2 ml l-1 combination gave fruit yield 124.01 q ha-1 versus 85.66 q ha-1 control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1e0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 124.01 q ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- 85.66 q ha-1e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum canopy volume, number of bisexual flowers, maturity index, fruit yield and lower fruit splitting were recorded (8.56 m3, 85.11 plant-1, 47.81, 124.01 q ha-1 and 1.87 kg plant-1) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1 as compared to absolute control (3.41 m3, 75.62 plant-1, 33.35, 85.66 q ha-1 and 2.41 kg plant-1)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2 ml l-1 combination lowered fruit splitting to 1.87 kg plant-1 versus 2.41 kg plant-1 control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1e0
- Outcome
- fruit splittinge0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1.87 kg plant-1e0
- Qualifier
- 2.41 kg plant-1e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum canopy volume, number of bisexual flowers, maturity index, fruit yield and lower fruit splitting were recorded (8.56 m3, 85.11 plant-1, 47.81, 124.01 q ha-1 and 1.87 kg plant-1) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 2 ml l-1 as compared to absolute control (3.41 m3, 75.62 plant-1, 33.35, 85.66 q ha-1 and 2.41 kg plant-1)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 3 ml l-1 combination minimized mite incidence at 4.72% versus 29.73% control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 3 ml l-1 applicatione0
- Outcome
- mite and fungal spot incidencee0
- Direction
- minimume0
- Value
- 4.72e0
- Qualifier
- 29.73e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mite and fungal spot incidence were recorded minimum (4.72 and 8.50%) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 3 ml l-1 application in comparison to maximum recorded in absolute control (29.73 and 33.68%)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 3 ml l-1 combination minimized fungal spot incidence at 8.50% versus 33.68% control.
- Taxon
- PomegranatePunica granatumt0
- Treatment
- withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 3 ml l-1 applicatione0
- Outcome
- fungal spot incidencee0
- Direction
- minimume0
- Value
- 8.50%e0
- Qualifier
- 33.68%e0
- Comparator
- absolute controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mite and fungal spot incidence were recorded minimum (4.72 and 8.50%) in withholding irrigation during June+pruning+thinning+ethrel 3 ml l-1 application in comparison to maximum recorded in absolute control (29.73 and 33.68%)”
t0“Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · growth · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · disease · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · phenology · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
(2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid · yield · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
irrigation · phenology · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
pruning · yield · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · growth · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →irrigation · yield · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 papers →8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.