Paper · 2023 · Horticultural Science

The influence of biofertilization on the vegetative growth, yielding and nutritional status of 'Sampion' apple trees in first years after planting

Waldemar Treder; Krzysztof Klamkowski; Lidia Sas-Paszt; et al.

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

The effects of biofertilizers on the growth, yielding, and nutritional status of apple trees (in comparison with the standard mineral fertilization) was evaluated in 3-years experiment (2018–2020). The experiment included the following treatments: (i) Super Fos Dar, (ii) Polifoska 6, (iii) Super Fos Dar + fungi (Aspergillus niger, Purpureocillium lilacinum), (iv) Urea enriched with fungi, (v) Urea dose reduced to 60% enriched with fungi, (vi) Super Fos Dar + bacteria applied on their own to the soil (Bacillus sp., Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Paenibacillus polymyxa), (vii) Super Fos Dar enriched with bacteria, (viii) Super Fos Dar 60% enriched with bacteria, (ix) Polifoska 6 enriched with bacteria, (x) Polifoska 6 60% enriched with bacteria. The application of mineral fertilizers (even in reduced doses) enriched with beneficial microorganisms enhanced the growth of apple trees. The most abundant flowering was recorded when fertilization (with Super Fos Dar) was supplemented with beneficial microorganisms applied to the soil. No significant differences in plant yielding were noted (due to damages caused by spring frosts), but the highest fruit weight was recorded in the case of the trees fertilized with microbiologically enriched Super Fos Dar.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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

Mineral fertilizers (even at reduced doses) enriched with beneficial microorganisms enhanced apple tree growth compared with standard mineral fertilization.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticae1
Treatment
mineral fertilizers (even in reduced doses) enriched with beneficial microorganismse1
Interactor
beneficial microorganismse1symbiont
Outcome
growthe1
Direction
enhancede1
Comparator
standard mineral fertilizatione0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The application of mineral fertilizers (even in reduced doses) enriched with beneficial microorganisms enhanced the growth of apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–888 · show in text ↑
e0

“The effects of biofertilizers on the growth, yielding, and nutritional status of apple trees (in comparison with the standard mineral fertilization)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Super Fos Dar fertilization supplemented with beneficial microorganisms applied to the soil gave the most abundant flowering.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Super Fos Dare2
Interactor
beneficial microorganismse2symbiont
Outcome
floweringe2
Direction
most abundante2

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“The most abundant flowering was recorded when fertilization (with Super Fos Dar) was supplemented with beneficial microorganisms applied to the soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 890–1038 · show in text ↑
t0

“'Sampion' apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Biofertilizers gave no significant difference in apple plant yielding compared with standard mineral fertilization, attributed to spring frost damage.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
biofertilizerse0
Outcome
plant yieldinge3
Direction
No significant differencese3
Qualifier
due to damages caused by spring frostse3
Comparator
standard mineral fertilizatione0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e3

“No significant differences in plant yielding were noted (due to damages caused by spring frosts)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1040–1136 · show in text ↑
e0

“The effects of biofertilizers on the growth, yielding, and nutritional status of apple trees (in comparison with the standard mineral fertilization)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–148 · show in text ↑
t0

“'Sampion' apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trees fertilized with microbiologically enriched Super Fos Dar had the highest fruit weight.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
microbiologically enriched Super Fos Dare4
Outcome
fruit weighte4
Direction
higheste4

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“the highest fruit weight was recorded in the case of the trees fertilized with microbiologically enriched Super Fos Dar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1261 · show in text ↑
t0

“'Sampion' apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–116 · show in text ↑

inoculation · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

15 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

inoculation · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

42 papers: 31 positive, 11 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 papers →

fertilization · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

106 papers: 90 positive, 16 negative or no effect

89 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

102 papers more in this group

See all 106 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.