Paper · 2024 · Horticulture Research Journal

Effect of Foliar Application with Potassium Rates and Zinc Sources on Washington Navel Orange Trees

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

Abstract

This investigation was carried out during two successive seasons (2020 and 2021) to study the effect of foliar application of potassium sulfate rates combined and different sources of zinc on Washington Navel orange (Citrus sinensis) trees grafted on sour orange rootstock (Citrus aurantium). Seven foliar spray treatments are conducted as follows: three different concentrations of potassium sulfate at 1, 2, and 3% combined with two sources of zinc: sugar alcohol zinc (SA-Zn) at 0.5% and chelated zinc (Zn-EDTA) at 0.5%, in addition to the control treatment. The best results were obtained by spraying potassium sulfate at 2% and sugar alcohol zinc (SA-Zn) at 0.5%, which was superior to improving tree nutritional status, fruit set percentage, yield efficiency, bio-chemical contents, mineral content of leaves and fruit quality.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spraying 2% potassium sulfate with 0.5% sugar alcohol zinc was superior to the control for tree nutritional status, fruit set percentage and yield efficiency.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangeCitrus sinensise2
Material
sour orange rootstocke2
Treatment
spraying potassium sulfate at 2% and sugar alcohol zinc (SA-Zn) at 0.5%e0
Outcome
tree nutritional status, fruit set percentage, yield efficiencye1
Direction
superiore1
Comparator
control treatmente4
Setting
two successive seasons (2020 and 2021)e3

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

Citrus sinensis
Citrus sinensis · TaxonEllen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The best results were obtained by spraying potassium sulfate at 2% and sugar alcohol zinc (SA-Zn) at 0.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 562–667 · show in text ↑
e1

“which was superior to improving tree nutritional status, fruit set percentage, yield efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–764 · show in text ↑
e2

“Washington Navel orange (Citrus sinensis) trees grafted on sour orange rootstock (Citrus aurantium)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 192–291 · show in text ↑
e3

“This investigation was carried out during two successive seasons (2020 and 2021)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–80 · show in text ↑
e4

“in addition to the control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 524–560 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spraying 2% potassium sulfate with 0.5% sugar alcohol zinc was superior to the control for bio-chemical contents, leaf mineral content and fruit quality.

Taxon
Washington Navel orangeCitrus sinensise2
Treatment
spraying potassium sulfate at 2% and sugar alcohol zinc (SA-Zn) at 0.5%e0
Outcome
bio-chemical contents, mineral content of leaves and fruit qualitye5
Direction
superiore5
Comparator
control treatmente4

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

Citrus sinensis
Citrus sinensis · TaxonEllen Levy Finch ( Elf ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The best results were obtained by spraying potassium sulfate at 2% and sugar alcohol zinc (SA-Zn) at 0.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 562–667 · show in text ↑
e2

“Washington Navel orange (Citrus sinensis) trees grafted on sour orange rootstock (Citrus aurantium)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 192–291 · show in text ↑
e4

“in addition to the control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 524–560 · show in text ↑
e5

“which was superior to improving tree nutritional status, fruit set percentage, yield efficiency, bio-chemical contents, mineral content of leaves and fruit quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–832 · show in text ↑

zinc atom · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results differ

19 papers: 17 positive, 2 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

salicylic acid · quality: grain · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

zinc atom · quality: grain · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

salicylic acid · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

potassium sulfate · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

application · quality: grain · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 10 positive, 6 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

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

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

application · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

77 papers: 65 positive, 12 negative or no effect

64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

73 papers more in this group

See all 77 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.