Abstract
Abstract Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973: slender spindle (SS), 2151 trees/ha, ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’; trellis (TR), 1121 trees/ha, all cultivars; interstem hedgerow (IH), 795 trees/ha, all cultivars; and pyramid hedgerow (PH), 425 trees/ha, ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Topred Delicious’. Yields of ‘Golden Delicious’ in the SS and TR were similar during the first 7 years and these systems generally produced higher yields than the less-intensive systems (IH and PH) during this period. Except for a drop in yield in the TR system in year 10, ‘Golden Delicious’ trees ≥8 years old in all systems produced >50 t·ha −1 . ‘Topred’ in the TR system outyielded IH and PH every year, while IH had higher yields than PH in three out of the eight cropping years. The spur-type cultivars Sundale and Millersturdeespur had lower yields per hectare than the standard-habit cultivars because they were spaced too widely. Yields of the systems with ‘Sundale’ generally followed plant density, with the SS being highest, IH lowest, and TR in between and often not significantly different from the other two systems. Orchard management systems had no consistent effects on fruit size. The cumulative yield per hectare of ‘Golden Delicious’ over 11 years grown as SS outproduced the IH and PH systems, with the TR yields intermediate. ‘Sundale’ managed as SS outproduced both the TR and IH systems. ‘Topred’ in the TR had higher cumulative yields per hectare than the PH system. An economic comparison of the ‘Golden Delicious’ systems indicated that PH provided the highest rate of return and the SS the lowest, with the IH and TR systems intermediate.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Golden Delicious yields in the SS and TR systems were similar in the first 7 years and generally higher than in the IH and PH systems.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Material
- Golden Deliciouse1
- Treatment
- SS and TRe1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- less-intensive systems (IH and PH)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e1“Yields of ‘Golden Delicious’ in the SS and TR were similar during the first 7 years and these systems generally produced higher yields than the less-intensive systems (IH and PH) during this period”
Claim · model-written summary
Golden Delicious trees aged 8 years or more produced more than 50 t/ha in all systems.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Golden Deliciouse2
- Organ / stage
- trees ≥8 years olde2
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Value
- >50 t·ha −1e2
- Qualifier
- Except for a drop in yield in the TR system in year 10e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e2“Except for a drop in yield in the TR system in year 10, ‘Golden Delicious’ trees ≥8 years old in all systems produced >50 t·ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Topred in the TR system outyielded the IH and PH systems in every year.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Toprede3
- Treatment
- TR systeme3
- Outcome
- yieldse3
- Direction
- outyieldede3
- Qualifier
- every yeare3
- Comparator
- IH and PHe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e3“‘Topred’ in the TR system outyielded IH and PH every year, while IH had higher yields than PH in three out of the eight cropping years”
Claim · model-written summary
IH had higher yields than PH in three of the eight cropping years.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- IHe3
- Outcome
- yieldse3
- Direction
- highere3
- Qualifier
- in three out of the eight cropping yearse3
- Comparator
- PHe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e3“‘Topred’ in the TR system outyielded IH and PH every year, while IH had higher yields than PH in three out of the eight cropping years”
Claim · model-written summary
The spur-type Sundale and Millersturdeespur had lower yields per hectare than standard-habit cultivars, attributed to wide spacing.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Sundale and Millersturdeespure4
- Outcome
- yields per hectaree4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Qualifier
- because they were spaced too widelye4
- Comparator
- standard-habit cultivarse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e4“The spur-type cultivars Sundale and Millersturdeespur had lower yields per hectare than the standard-habit cultivars because they were spaced too widely”
Claim · model-written summary
Yields of the Sundale orchard systems generally followed plant density, highest in SS and lowest in IH.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Sundalee5
- Outcome
- yieldse5
- Qualifier
- generally followed plant densitye5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e5“Yields of the systems with ‘Sundale’ generally followed plant density, with the SS being highest, IH lowest, and TR in between and often not significantly different from the other two systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Orchard management systems had no consistent effect on apple fruit size.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- Orchard management systemse6
- Outcome
- fruit sizee6
- Direction
- no consistent effectse6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e6“Orchard management systems had no consistent effects on fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
Over 11 years, Golden Delicious grown as SS outproduced the IH and PH systems, with TR intermediate, in cumulative yield per hectare.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Golden Deliciouse7
- Treatment
- SSe7
- Outcome
- cumulative yield per hectaree7
- Direction
- outproducede7
- Qualifier
- over 11 yearse7
- Comparator
- IH and PHe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e7“The cumulative yield per hectare of ‘Golden Delicious’ over 11 years grown as SS outproduced the IH and PH systems, with the TR yields intermediate”
Claim · model-written summary
Sundale managed as SS outproduced the TR and IH systems in cumulative yield per hectare.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Sundalee1
- Treatment
- SSe1
- Outcome
- cumulative yield per hectaree7
- Direction
- outproducede1
- Comparator
- TR and IHe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e1“‘Sundale’ managed as SS outproduced both the TR and IH systems”
e7“The cumulative yield per hectare of ‘Golden Delicious’ over 11 years grown as SS outproduced the IH and PH systems, with the TR yields intermediate”
Claim · model-written summary
Topred in the TR system had higher cumulative yield per hectare than in the PH system.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Toprede1
- Treatment
- TRe1
- Outcome
- cumulative yields per hectaree1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- PHe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e1“‘Topred’ in the TR had higher cumulative yields per hectare than the PH system”
Claim · model-written summary
In the economic comparison, PH gave the highest rate of return among Golden Delicious systems.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Golden Deliciouse1
- Treatment
- PHe1
- Outcome
- rate of returne1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Comparator
- the SSe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e1“An economic comparison of the ‘Golden Delicious’ systems indicated that PH provided the highest rate of return and the SS the lowest, with the IH and TR systems intermediate”
Claim · model-written summary
In the economic comparison, SS gave the lowest rate of return among Golden Delicious systems, with IH and TR intermediate.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Golden Deliciouse1
- Treatment
- SSe1
- Outcome
- rate of returne1
- Direction
- loweste1
- Qualifier
- with the IH and TR systems intermediatee1
- Comparator
- PHe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees of ‘Golden Delicious’, ‘Topred Delicious’, ‘Millersturdeespur Delicious’, and ‘Sundale Golden Delicious’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) were grown in two or more of the following orchard management systems established in 1973”
e1“An economic comparison of the ‘Golden Delicious’ systems indicated that PH provided the highest rate of return and the SS the lowest, with the IH and TR systems intermediate”
The same questions in other papers
ph · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →cultivation system · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.