Search Results

You are looking at 41 - 50 of 324 items for :

  • "berry weight" x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Open access

Bernadine C. Strik and Amanda J. Davis

harvest date to determine average berry weight (a weighted seasonal average mass was then calculated) and assess berry firmness and diameter using a FirmTech II (BioWorks, Inc., Wamego, KS). Then, the subsamples were homogenized by hand in a zippered

Free access

Oscar L. Vargas and David R. Bryla

sample of 100 berries was also weighed at each harvest to calculate the average berry weight in each plot. Leaf samples were collected for N analysis during the first week of August each year ( Hart et al., 2006 ). Six recently mature leaves were sampled

Free access

Jeffrey G. Williamson, Luis Mejia, Bradley Ferguson, Paul Miller, and Dorota Z. Haman

continuing until late May or early June of each year. Mean berry weight was determined for each harvest date by weighing 25-berry subsamples. Plant canopy volumes were determined in June of each year before summer pruning by measuring plant height and width

Free access

Shijian Zhuang, Letizia Tozzini, Alan Green, Dana Acimovic, G. Stanley Howell, Simone D. Castellarin, and Paolo Sabbatini

coolers, transported to campus, and stored at –20 °C. Each cluster was weighed and the berry number per cluster was used to calculate average berry weight. Fruit chemistry components, e.g., TSS, pH, titratable acid (TA), anthocyanins, and total phenolics

Free access

Tongyin Li and Guihong Bi

). Berry harvest and data collection. Southern highbush cultivars were evaluated for the date of first harvest, berry yield, single berry weight, and soluble solid content for two growing seasons in 2016 to 2017. Ripe berries were harvested on a weekly

Open access

Olivia M. Smith, Beverly Gerdeman, Matthew Arrington, Hollis Spitler, and Lisa Wasko DeVetter

flies (clade Anthophila and family Syrphidae, respectively), while honeybee populations were the same between wildflower and grass borders. Furthermore, fruit set, berry weight, and seed number per berry were greater among highbush blueberry plants

Full access

Eric Hanson, Mike Von Weihe, Annemiek C. Schilder, Ann M. Chanon, and Joseph C. Scheerens

TR-525l; Texas Electronics, Dallas, TX). Statistical analyses. Since tunnel and field plantings were not replicated, data were analyzed as separate studies that could not be compared statistically. Within each study, yield, average berry weight

Free access

Khalid F. Almutairi, David R. Bryla, and Bernadine C. Strik

tests were used to determine whether there were any significant differences between the treatments irrigated at 100% and 150% ET c . Each measurement, including stem water potential, pruning weight, fruit bud set, yield, berry weight and diameter

Free access

Molly Felts, Renee T. Threlfall, John R. Clark, and Margaret L. Worthington

weighed and the firmness was measured immediately after harvest. Then, the seeds of each berry were removed, weighed, and counted. Berry weight and total seed weight were measured on a digital scale (PA224 Analytic Balance; Ohaus Corporation, Parsippany

Free access

Amanda J. Vance, Patrick Jones, and Bernadine C. Strik

inductively coupled plasma spectrophotometer after wet ashing the samples in nitric/perchloric acid ( Gavlak et al., 1994 ). Data collection and storage. Data collected on the day of fruit harvest included berry weight, rating of fruit appearance, firmness