Abstract
Plum is the most important fruit crop for cultivation in Serbia. However, a small amount of plum fruit is sold as fresh fruit due to its poor quality. In order to improve fruit quality and obtain regular and high yield chemical blossom thinning agents were applied. The experiment was conducted on seven-year-old plum trees of cultivar `Stanley` which were planted on distance 5x5 m. Ammonium thiosulphate and ethephon were applied in the next treatments: 1) ammonium thiosulphate 1.5% (ATS); 2) ethephon 0.015% (E); 3) ammonium thiosulphate 1.5% + ethephon 0.015% (ATS + E); 4) hand thinning (HT); 5) untreated control treatment (UTC). Chemical thinning treatments were performed once during the phase of full bloom, while hand thinning treatment was performed after the fall of unfertilized fruitlets at the end of May. Parameters analyzed were yield, fruit size, fruit weight, pit weight, fruit firmness, fruit shape index, soluble solids content, total acid content and the amount of harvested fruits per time unit. The obtained results have shown that ATS + E, ATS and HT treatments significantly reduced the number of fruits on the trees compared to the control treatment. However, yield per tree was reduced significantly only in the ATS + E treatment. Other treatments compensated for the smaller number of fruits per tree with a significantly larger fruit size. Since the fruit size was larger on treated trees, the amount of harvested fruits per time unit was significant compared to control treatment. There were no significant differences among the applied treatments in terms of fruit firmness, soluble solids and total acid content.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Combined ATS and ethephon significantly reduced fruit number relative to untreated controls.
- Taxon
- plum
Prunus domesticae1 - Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Treatment
- ATS + Ee0
- Outcome
- number of fruits on the treese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ATS + E, ATS and HT treatments significantly reduced the number of fruits on the trees compared to the control treatment.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
Claim · model-written summary
ATS significantly reduced fruit number relative to untreated controls.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Treatment
- ATSe0
- Outcome
- number of fruits on the treese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ATS + E, ATS and HT treatments significantly reduced the number of fruits on the trees compared to the control treatment.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand thinning significantly reduced fruit number relative to untreated controls.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Treatment
- HTe0
- Outcome
- number of fruits on the treese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ATS + E, ATS and HT treatments significantly reduced the number of fruits on the trees compared to the control treatment.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
Claim · model-written summary
Only combined ATS and ethephon significantly reduced yield per tree.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Treatment
- ATS + Ee0
- Outcome
- yield per treee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield per tree was reduced significantly only in the ATS + E treatment.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
Claim · model-written summary
Other thinning treatments offset fewer fruits per tree with significantly larger fruit size.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Treatment
- Other treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- largere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Other treatments compensated for the smaller number of fruits per tree with a significantly larger fruit size.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated trees had significantly greater harvested fruit per unit time than controls.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Treatment
- treated treese0
- Outcome
- amount of harvested fruits per time unite0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Since the fruit size was larger on treated trees, the amount of harvested fruits per time unit was significant compared to control treatment.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit firmness, soluble solids, and total acid content did not differ significantly among treatments.
- Taxon
- plumPrunus domesticae1
- Material
- `Stanley`e1
- Outcome
- fruit firmness, soluble solids and total acid contente0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- applied treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences among the applied treatments in terms of fruit firmness, soluble solids and total acid content.”
e1“plum trees of cultivar `Stanley`”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Prunus domestica (plum)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.