Abstract
Studies were conducted to better understand the effect of temperature, photoperiod, cultural practices, and growth regulators on the hardening and dehardening of peach tree wood. Greenhouses were constructed to control temperatures to which peach trees were exposed. It was noted that hardening and dehardening usually followed the temperature fluctuation fairly closely. However, trees exposed to temperatures above 60 F (15. 6 C) became hardy to 0 F (-17. 8 C). A photoperiodic response in regard to an increase or decrease in hardiness was not definitely observed in peach wood. Extended photoperiod did not produce any significant effect on hardiness. Defoliation, bloom date, and fruit set were all the same as the controls. The cultural practices of fall pruning and heavy late summer fertilization with nitrogen did not result in a change in the hardiness level of the trees when compared with the controls. Likewise gibberellic acid spray had no effect. Defoliation produced serious physiological damage when done in mid-August, while defoliation in mid-September was not nearly so damaging, Defoliated trees were less hardy than the controls until mid winter.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Peach trees exposed to temperatures above 60 F became hardy to 0 F.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- temperatures above 60 Fe1
- Outcome
- hardye2
- Direction
- became hardye2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e1“trees exposed to temperatures above 60 F”
e2“became hardy to 0 F”
Claim · model-written summary
Hardening and dehardening of peach wood closely followed temperature fluctuation.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- temperature fluctuatione3
- Outcome
- hardening and dehardeninge3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e3“hardening and dehardening usually followed the temperature fluctuation fairly closely”
Claim · model-written summary
A photoperiodic response in hardiness was not definitely observed in peach wood.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- photoperiode4
- Outcome
- hardinesse4
- Direction
- not definitely observede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e4“A photoperiodic response in regard to an increase or decrease in hardiness was not definitely observed in peach wood”
Claim · model-written summary
Extended photoperiod had no significant effect on hardiness.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Extended photoperiode5
- Outcome
- hardinesse5
- Direction
- did not produce any significant effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e5“Extended photoperiod did not produce any significant effect on hardiness”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation did not change bloom date or fruit set compared to controls.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Defoliatione6
- Outcome
- bloom date, and fruit sete6
- Direction
- all the samee6
- Comparator
- controlse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e6“Defoliation, bloom date, and fruit set were all the same as the controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall pruning and heavy late summer nitrogen fertilization did not change hardiness compared to controls.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- fall pruning and heavy late summer fertilization with nitrogene7
- Outcome
- hardiness levele7
- Direction
- did not result in a changee7
- Comparator
- controlse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e7“The cultural practices of fall pruning and heavy late summer fertilization with nitrogen did not result in a change in the hardiness level of the trees when compared with the controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellic acid spray had no effect on peach wood hardiness.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- gibberellic acid spraye1
- Outcome
- effecte1
- Direction
- no effecte1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e1“Likewise gibberellic acid spray had no effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation in mid-August caused serious physiological damage.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Defoliatione1
- Outcome
- physiological damagee1
- Direction
- seriouse1
- Qualifier
- mid-Auguste1
- Comparator
- mid-Septembere2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e1“Defoliation produced serious physiological damage when done in mid-August”
e2“while defoliation in mid-September was not nearly so damaging”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation in mid-September was not nearly as damaging as in mid-August.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- defoliation in mid-Septembere2
- Outcome
- damaginge2
- Direction
- not nearly so damaginge2
- Comparator
- mid-Auguste1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e1“Defoliation produced serious physiological damage when done in mid-August”
e2“while defoliation in mid-September was not nearly so damaging”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliated peach trees were less hardy than controls until mid-winter.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Defoliated treese1
- Outcome
- hardye1
- Direction
- less hardye1
- Qualifier
- until mid wintere1
- Comparator
- controlse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cold Hardiness of Peach Wood”
e1“Defoliated trees were less hardy than the controls until mid winter”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · tolerance: abiotic · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →pruning · pest · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →pruning · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 papers →nitrogen · tolerance: abiotic · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
light · tolerance: abiotic · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.