Abstract
Ten-years-old "Le-Conte" pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock at El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt, were treated as follows: (1) Shoot bending (tying shoots down to be nearby at horizontal position, (2) Tip pruning (removal a distal portion of the long shoots), (3) Shoot bending + tip pruning,(4) defoliation (removal of all leaves by spraying trees with 10% urea solution, (5) Shoot bending + defoliation., (6) tip pruning + defoliation, (7) Shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliation, (8) Girdling the limbs with 9 mm width, (9) Control. Shoot bending and girdling were carried out 7 days after full bloom tip pruning was done at the beginning of June, while defoliation treatment was done in the end of November. All treatments decreased shoot length especially treatment of shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliation, however, number of leaves and leaf area increased. The combined treatments were better than single ones. The treatments caused an increase in spur percentage, fruit set and yield. The best treatment was shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliation followed in descending order by treatments of shoot bending + defoliation, tip pruning + defoliation, and shoot bending + tip pruning. Girdling treatment gave the best fruit weight, volume, height and diameter followed by the combined treatment, however, differences of the resulted values of fruit firmness, total soluble solids and acidity were insignificant.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
All cultural treatments decreased shoot length compared with the control, most strongly with shoot bending plus tip pruning plus defoliation.
- Taxon
- pear trees
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communise1 - Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- shoot lengthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- especially treatment of shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliatione0
- Comparator
- Controle2
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“All treatments decreased shoot length especially treatment of shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliation, however, number of leaves and leaf area increased”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“(9) Control”
e3“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
All cultural treatments increased the number of leaves and leaf area compared with the control.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- number of leaves and leaf areae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- Controle2
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments decreased shoot length especially treatment of shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliation, however, number of leaves and leaf area increased”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“(9) Control”
e3“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined cultural treatments were better than single treatments.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- combined treatmentse0
- Outcome
- bettere0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- single onese0
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combined treatments were better than single ones”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
The cultural treatments increased spur percentage, fruit set and yield compared with the control.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- spur percentage, fruit set and yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- Controle2
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The treatments caused an increase in spur percentage, fruit set and yield”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“(9) Control”
e3“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
Girdling gave the best fruit weight, volume and height.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- Girdlinge0
- Outcome
- fruit weight, volume, heighte0
- Direction
- beste0
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Girdling treatment gave the best fruit weight, volume, height and diameter followed by the combined treatment”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
Girdling gave the best fruit diameter.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- Girdlinge0
- Outcome
- diametere0
- Direction
- beste0
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Girdling treatment gave the best fruit weight, volume, height and diameter followed by the combined treatment”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit firmness, total soluble solids and acidity did not differ significantly among the treatments.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Outcome
- fruit firmness, total soluble solids and aciditye0
- Direction
- insignificante0
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte2
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“differences of the resulted values of fruit firmness, total soluble solids and acidity were insignificant”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot bending plus tip pruning plus defoliation was the best treatment.
- Taxon
- pear treesPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliatione0
- Outcome
- best treatmente0
- Direction
- beste0
- Setting
- El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypte2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best treatment was shoot bending + tip pruning + defoliation followed in descending order by treatments of shoot bending + defoliation”
e1“pear trees on Pyrus communis rootstock”
e2“El-Kanater Horticultural Research Station, Egypt”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →pruning · yield · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.