Abstract
Apple tree productivity is influenced by the quantity of water and nutrients that are supplied during planting. To enhance resource utilization efficiency and optimize yields, a suitable strategy for supplying water and nitrogen must be established. A field experiment was conducted using a randomized block group design on five-year-old apple trees in Ningxia, with two irrigation lower limit levels (55%FC (W1) and 75%FC (W2)) and four N application levels (0 (N1), 120 (N2), 240 (N3), and 360 (N4) kg·ha−1). Our findings showed that leaf N content increased with a higher irrigation lower limit, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, the leaf N content significantly increased with increasing N application. The growth pattern of new shoots followed logistic curve characteristics, with the maximum new shoot growth rate and time of new shoot growth being delayed under high water and high nitrogen treatments. Apple yield and yield components (weight per fruit and number of fruits per plant) were enhanced under N application compared to no N application. The maximum apple yields were 19,405.3 kg·ha−1 (2022) and 29,607 kg·ha−1 (2023) at the N3 level. A parabolic relationship was observed between apple yield and N application level, with the optimal range of N application being 230–260 kg⸱ha−1. Apple quality indicators were not significantly affected by the irrigation lower limit but were significantly influenced by N application levels. The lower limit of irrigation did not have a significant impact on the quality indicators of the apples. Water and N utilization efficiencies improved with the W2 treatment at the same N application level. A negative relationship was observed between the amount of nitrogen applied and the biased productivity of nitrogen fertilizer. The utilization of nitrogen fertilizer was 127.6 kg·kg−1 (2022) and 200.3 kg·kg−1 (2023) in the W2N2 treatment. The apple yield was sustained, the quality of the fruit improved, and a substantial increase in water productivity was achieved with the W2N3 treatment. The findings of this study can be used as a reference for accurate field irrigation.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Higher irrigation lower limit increased leaf nitrogen content without statistical significance.
- Taxon
- Apple tree
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- higher irrigation lower limite0
- Outcome
- leaf N contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf N content increased with a higher irrigation lower limit, but the difference was not statistically significant”
t0“Apple Tree”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nitrogen application significantly increased leaf nitrogen content.
- Taxon
- Apple treeMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- increasing N applicatione0
- Outcome
- leaf N contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the leaf N content significantly increased with increasing N application”
t0“Apple tree”
Claim · model-written summary
New shoot growth followed a logistic curve.
- Taxon
- Apple treeMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- growth pattern of new shootse0
- Qualifier
- logistic curve characteristicse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The growth pattern of new shoots followed logistic curve characteristics”
t0“Apple tree”
Claim · model-written summary
High water and nitrogen delayed the maximum new shoot growth rate and its timing.
- Taxon
- Apple treeMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- high water and high nitrogen treatmentse0
- Outcome
- maximum new shoot growth rate and time of new shoot growthe0
- Direction
- delayede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maximum new shoot growth rate and time of new shoot growth being delayed under high water and high nitrogen treatments”
t0“Apple tree”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application increased apple yield compared with no nitrogen.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- N applicatione0
- Outcome
- Apple yielde0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- no N applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple yield and yield components (weight per fruit and number of fruits per plant) were enhanced under N application compared to no N application”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application increased fruit weight and fruits per plant.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- N applicatione0
- Outcome
- weight per fruit and number of fruits per plante0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- no N applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple yield and yield components (weight per fruit and number of fruits per plant) were enhanced under N application compared to no N application”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum apple yield at N3 was 19,405.3 kg·ha−1 in 2022.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- N3 levele0
- Outcome
- apple yieldse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 19,405.3 kg·ha−1e0
- Qualifier
- 2022e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum apple yields were 19,405.3 kg·ha−1 (2022) and 29,607 kg·ha−1 (2023) at the N3 level”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum apple yield at N3 was 29,607 kg·ha−1 in 2023.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- N3 levele0
- Outcome
- apple yieldse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 29,607 kg·ha−1e0
- Qualifier
- 2023e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum apple yields were 19,405.3 kg·ha−1 (2022) and 29,607 kg·ha−1 (2023) at the N3 level”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple yield had a parabolic relation to nitrogen application level.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- N application levele0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Qualifier
- parabolic relationshipe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A parabolic relationship was observed between apple yield and N application level”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal nitrogen application range for yield was 230–260 kg⸱ha−1.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- optimal range of N applicatione0
- Value
- 230–260 kg⸱ha−1e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the optimal range of N application being 230–260 kg⸱ha−1”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation lower limit did not significantly affect apple quality indicators.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- irrigation lower limite0
- Outcome
- Apple quality indicatorse0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple quality indicators were not significantly affected by the irrigation lower limit”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application significantly influenced apple quality indicators.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- N application levelse0
- Outcome
- Apple quality indicatorse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple quality indicators were not significantly affected by the irrigation lower limit but were significantly influenced by N application levels”
Claim · model-written summary
W2 improved water and nitrogen utilization efficiencies at the same nitrogen application level.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- W2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- Water and N utilization efficienciese0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- same N application levele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water and N utilization efficiencies improved with the W2 treatment at the same N application level”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen applied was negatively related to nitrogen fertilizer biased productivity.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- amount of nitrogen appliede0
- Outcome
- biased productivity of nitrogen fertilizere0
- Direction
- negativee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A negative relationship was observed between the amount of nitrogen applied and the biased productivity of nitrogen fertilizer”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilizer utilization with W2N2 was 127.6 kg·kg−1 in 2022.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- W2N2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- utilization of nitrogen fertilizere0
- Value
- 127.6 kg·kg−1e0
- Qualifier
- 2022e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The utilization of nitrogen fertilizer was 127.6 kg·kg−1 (2022) and 200.3 kg·kg−1 (2023) in the W2N2 treatment”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilizer utilization with W2N2 was 200.3 kg·kg−1 in 2023.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- W2N2 treatmente0
- Outcome
- utilization of nitrogen fertilizere0
- Value
- 200.3 kg·kg−1e0
- Qualifier
- 2023e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The utilization of nitrogen fertilizer was 127.6 kg·kg−1 (2022) and 200.3 kg·kg−1 (2023) in the W2N2 treatment”
t0“Apple”
Claim · model-written summary
W2N3 sustained apple yield.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- W2N3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Direction
- sustainede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple yield was sustained, the quality of the fruit improved, and a substantial increase in water productivity was achieved with the W2N3 treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
W2N3 improved fruit quality.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- W2N3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- quality of the fruite0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple yield was sustained, the quality of the fruit improved, and a substantial increase in water productivity was achieved with the W2N3 treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
W2N3 substantially increased water productivity.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- W2N3 treatmente0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The apple yield was sustained, the quality of the fruit improved, and a substantial increase in water productivity was achieved with the W2N3 treatment”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
65 papers more in this group
See all 69 papers →irrigation · quality: general · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →nitrogen · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 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.