Search Results

You are looking at 21 - 30 of 81 items for :

  • "harvest method" x
  • Refine by Access: User-accessible Content x
Clear All
Open access

Mary Vargo and James E. Faust

Herbaceous stock plant production and cutting harvest methods affect the performance of cuttings harvested from those stock plants. Specifically, the effect of daily light integral (DLI), ethephon spray applications, and the stock plant node position (NPSP) of hybrid impatiens (Impatiens ×hybrida) ‘Compact Electric Orange’ stock plants on the flowering of the harvested cuttings was examined. The DLI treatments were grouped in ranges of low (5.1–5.5 mol·m–2·d–1), medium (7.6–8.8 mol·m–2·d–1), and high (10.3–12.0 mol·m–2·d–1) levels. The stock plants were treated weekly with 0, 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg·L–1 ethephon. Cuttings were harvested from six NPSP, which refers to the location on the stock plants from which the cuttings were harvested. Time to flower of the harvested cuttings decreased as DLI increased from 5.1 to 12.0 mol·m–2·d–1, as ethephon concentrations decreased from 300 to 0 mg·L–1, and as NPSP moved from lower to upper positions within the stock plant canopy. Time to flower was highly correlated with the node position on the cutting (NPC) where the first flower appeared. For example, when flowers appeared in the lowest NPC on the shoot (NPC 1), the first flower opened 2.5 weeks after sticking the unrooted cuttings in propagation, while flowers that appeared in NPC 7, the seventh-oldest node from the base of the cutting, opened at 9.0 weeks. The results demonstrate how stock plant management practices can be manipulated to produce cuttings that allow growers to produce flowering plants on different schedules, i.e., production time can be shortened from conventional production schedules, which may allow hybrid impatiens to be marketed like bedding plant species such as impatiens (Impatiens walleriana).

Full access

Steven A. Sargent, Adrian D. Berry, Jeffrey G. Williamson, and James W. Olmstead

One. Four replicate plots were randomly assigned for both harvest methods. In the MH plots, all plants were harvested, while in the HH plots, six plants were harvested on the first harvest date and four plants on the remaining harvest dates. Harvest

Free access

Bruno Casamali, Jeffrey G. Williamson, Alisson P. Kovaleski, Steven A. Sargent, and Rebecca L. Darnell

, 1996 ). Blueberries are very perishable ( Vicente et al., 2007 ), thus, adequate and efficient harvesting methods ( Sargent et al., 2013 ), handling and packing ( Jackson et al., 1999 ), and postharvest storage strategies ( Schotsmans et al., 2007 ) are

Full access

Josep Rufat, Agustí J. Romero-Aroca, Amadeu Arbonés, Josep M. Villar, Juan F. Hermoso, and Miquel Pascual

, suggesting a clear effect on sensory characteristics of olive oil, although no sensory analysis was performed to confirm that possibility. Currently, there are few published studies that combine the effect of irrigation regime and harvest method as key

Full access

Alexander D. Pavlista, Gary Hergert, Dipak K. Santra, and James A. Schild

would raise the lowest pods of ‘Poncho’ and ‘Matterhorn’ common bean plants higher off the ground, and whether this may result in improved yields comparing direct vs. conventional harvest methods. Fig. 1. Diagram of common bean seedling showing

Free access

Duane W. Green

methods, rootstocks used if appropriate, major pest problems, and planting, design, training and pruning in cultivation of the crops. Harvest and Postharvest Handling. Criteria used to determine the time of harvest, methods of harvest, and methods and

Free access

David G. Himelrick

—including soils and climate, propagation, planting design, training and pruning, and pest problems. Next is Harvest, Postharvest Handling—including maturity, harvest method, postharvest handling, and storage. Each of the chapters ends with a Contribution to Diet

Free access

Juan Carlos Melgar, Jill M. Dunlop, and James P. Syvertsen

irrigation treatments and harvesting methods were tested using analysis of variance (SAS 9.1; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Percentage data were transformed by arcsin and means were separated by Duncan's multiple range test ( P ≤ 0.05). Results Petal fall

Free access

Timothy M. Spann, Luis V. Pozo, Igor Kostenyuk, and Jacqueline K. Burns

and hand harvest with and without CMNP application. Harvest method and CMNP application had no effect on fruit crush force at either harvest date in 2009 ( Fig. 1 , top) or 2010 ( Fig. 2 , top). Fruit crush forces ranged from 376.6 to 418.7 N and 348

Free access

Michele R. Warmund, Andrew K. Biggs, and Larry D. Godsey

with 12 replications of each harvest method. The 4 × 8 m-area below the tree canopy was divided in half and designated as either the east or west sector. Harvest equipment used on each tree sector was randomly assigned, and the same sectors were