“yield decrease”

Claim · model-written summary

Bimonthly suckering reduced total fresh weight of suckers by 70.71% compared with the untreated control

Taxon

pomegranatePunica granatumt0

Treatment

bimonthlye1

Outcome

total fresh weight of suckerse1

Direction

decreasee1

Value

70.71%e1

Comparator

untreated controle1

Verbatim

t0

“Manfalouty Pomegranate”

e1

“Suckering monthly or bimonthly resulted in significant decrease in total fresh weight of suckers and or watersprouts. These reductions were expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%, respectively, compared to the untreated control (4026.46 g)”

Claim · model-written summary

Monthly suckering reduced total fresh weight of suckers by 85.30% compared with the untreated control

Taxon

pomegranatePunica granatumt0

Treatment

Suckering monthlye1

Outcome

total fresh weight of suckerse1

Direction

decreasee1

Value

85.30e1

Qualifier

expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%e1

Comparator

untreated controle1

Verbatim

t0

“Manfalouty Pomegranate”

e1

“Suckering monthly or bimonthly resulted in significant decrease in total fresh weight of suckers and or watersprouts. These reductions were expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%, respectively, compared to the untreated control (4026.46 g)”

Claim · model-written summary

Suckering enhanced commercial yield percentage per tree

Taxon

pomegranatePunica granatumt0

Treatment

Suckering monthlye1

Outcome

commercial yield percentage/treee3

Direction

enhancede3

Comparator

untreated controle3

Verbatim

t0

“Manfalouty Pomegranate”

e1

“Suckering monthly or bimonthly resulted in significant decrease in total fresh weight of suckers and or watersprouts. These reductions were expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%, respectively, compared to the untreated control (4026.46 g)”

e3

“Additionally, it induced significant increase in fruit set, fruit yield/tree and enhanced commercial yield percentage/tree, compared to the untreated control”

Claim · model-written summary

Suckering increased fruit set and fruit yield per tree

Taxon

pomegranatePunica granatumt0

Treatment

Suckering monthlye1

Outcome

fruit set, fruit yield/treee3

Direction

increasee3

Comparator

untreated controle3

Verbatim

t0

“Manfalouty Pomegranate”

e1

“Suckering monthly or bimonthly resulted in significant decrease in total fresh weight of suckers and or watersprouts. These reductions were expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%, respectively, compared to the untreated control (4026.46 g)”

e3

“Additionally, it induced significant increase in fruit set, fruit yield/tree and enhanced commercial yield percentage/tree, compared to the untreated control”

Claim · model-written summary

Suckering increased the carbohydrate/nitrogen (C/N) ratio of pomegranate

Taxon

pomegranatePunica granatumt0

Treatment

Suckering monthlye1

Outcome

carbohydrate/ nitrogen (C/N) ratioe2

Direction

increasede2

Comparator

untreated controle1

Verbatim

t0

“Manfalouty Pomegranate”

e1

“Suckering monthly or bimonthly resulted in significant decrease in total fresh weight of suckers and or watersprouts. These reductions were expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%, respectively, compared to the untreated control (4026.46 g)”

e2

“It also significantly increased upper shoots length, number of leaves per shoot and leaf area as well as the carbohydrate/ nitrogen (C/N) ratio”

Claim · model-written summary

Suckering increased upper shoot length, number of leaves per shoot and leaf area

Taxon

pomegranatePunica granatumt0

Treatment

Suckering monthlye1

Outcome

upper shoots length, number of leaves per shoot and leaf areae2

Direction

increasede2

Comparator

untreated controle1

Verbatim

t0

“Manfalouty Pomegranate”

e1

“Suckering monthly or bimonthly resulted in significant decrease in total fresh weight of suckers and or watersprouts. These reductions were expressed as 85.30 and 70.71%, respectively, compared to the untreated control (4026.46 g)”

e2

“It also significantly increased upper shoots length, number of leaves per shoot and leaf area as well as the carbohydrate/ nitrogen (C/N) ratio”