Paper · 2021 · Annals of Agricultural Science Moshtohor

PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON FERTILIZATION OF LECONT CV. PEAR TRANSPLANTS 1-Some vegetative growth parameters

A And Bakry; E Abd-Ella; S Mervate; et al.

4
claims
11
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This research was carried out during both 2019 and 2020 seasons to study the influence of the two investigated factors i.e., Lecont pear budded on two rootstocks (Betulaefolia and Communis) and some mineral and bio-fertilizers on some vegetative growth measurements. Results data showed that, Betulaefolia rootstock was better than Communis rootstock in this respect. Also, Concerning the specific effect of the different bio-fertilizers data indicated that, fertilizer with Nitrobein at 5 g/ transplant + Phosphorein at 5 g/ transplant + Potasein at 5 g/ transplant + Effective microorganisms (EM) at 50 cm./ transplant +3/4 dose of mineral fertilizers (75%) was superior in this respect. Concerning the interaction effect the highest vegetative growth were obtained with the combination between Lecont pear transplants budded on Betulaefolia rootstock and fertilized with soil application of Nitrobein at 5 g/ transplant + Phosphorein at 5 g/ transplant + Potasein at 5 g/ transplant + Effective microorganisms (EM) at 50 cm./ transplant +3/4 dose of mineral fertilizers (75%), however the lowest values were noticed by Lecont pear transplants budded on Communis rootstock and fertilizer with mineral element (control) during the two seasons of study.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Betulaefolia rootstock gave better pear vegetative growth than Communis.

Material
Betulaefoliae0
Treatment
Betulaefolia rootstocke0
Outcome
vegetative growth measurementse1
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
Communis rootstocke0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Betulaefolia rootstock was better than Communis rootstock in this respect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–366 · show in text ↑
e1

“some vegetative growth measurements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 230–265 · show in text ↑
t0

“LECONT CV. PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined biofertilizer and 75% mineral fertilizer treatment was superior for pear vegetative growth.

Treatment
Nitrobein at 5 g/ transplant + Phosphorein at 5 g/ transplant + Potasein at 5 g/ transplant + Effective microorganisms (EM) at 50 cm./ transplant +3/4 dose of mineral fertilizers (75%)e0
Outcome
vegetative growth measurementse1
Direction
superiore0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fertilizer with Nitrobein at 5 g/ transplant + Phosphorein at 5 g/ transplant + Potasein at 5 g/ transplant + Effective microorganisms (EM) at 50 cm./ transplant +3/4 dose of mineral fertilizers (75%) was superior in this respect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 459–688 · show in text ↑
e1

“some vegetative growth measurements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 230–265 · show in text ↑
t0

“LECONT CV. PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Betulaefolia with the combined fertilizer treatment produced the highest pear transplant vegetative growth.

Material
Betulaefoliae0
Treatment
soil application of Nitrobein at 5 g/ transplant + Phosphorein at 5 g/ transplant + Potasein at 5 g/ transplant + Effective microorganisms (EM) at 50 cm./ transplant +3/4 dose of mineral fertilizers (75%)e0
Outcome
vegetative growthe0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest vegetative growth were obtained with the combination between Lecont pear transplants budded on Betulaefolia rootstock and fertilized with soil application of Nitrobein at 5 g/ transplant + Phosphorein at 5 g/ transplant + Potasein at 5 g/ transplant + Effective microorganisms (EM) at 50 cm./ transplant +3/4 dose of mineral fertilizers (75%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–1078 · show in text ↑
t0

“LECONT CV. PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Communis with mineral fertilizer control had the lowest pear transplant vegetative growth.

Material
Communise0
Treatment
fertilizer with mineral element (control)e0
Outcome
vegetative growthe1
Direction
loweste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the lowest values were noticed by Lecont pear transplants budded on Communis rootstock and fertilizer with mineral element (control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1220 · show in text ↑
e1

“the highest vegetative growth were obtained”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–767 · show in text ↑
t0

“LECONT CV. PEAR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑

inoculation · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

grafting · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

application · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 16 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

fertilization · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 23 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 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.