Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 75 items for :

  • "fruit evaluation" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Free access

Chad E. Finn, Bernadine C. Strik, Brian Yorgey, Michael Qian, Robert R. Martin, and Mary Peterson

for fresh fruit evaluation and three replications harvested once a week to determine harvest season, yield, and fruit weight (mean of randomly selected 25-berry subsamples per harvest). A mean weighted fruit weight was calculated. These data, collected

Open access

Chunxian Chen and William R. Okie

. Both photos were taken outdoors in natural sunlight. Fig. 3. Statistical analysis of fruit evaluation data using the GLIMMIX procedure with Tukey’s honestly significant difference test in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The F values and

Free access

Rebecca Grumet and Marivi Colle

Resistance to belly rot in cucumber identified through field and detached-fruit evaluations J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 123 78 84 Wechter, W.P. Levi, A. Ling, K.S. Kousik, C.S. Block, C.C. 2011 Identification of resistance to Acidovorax avenae subsp. citrulli

Free access

Craig A. Ledbetter

Seedless’ from 2006 to 2011 in Parlier. Fruit evaluation data collected annually included number of clusters per vine, vine yield, cluster and berry weights, berry lengths, and berry diameters. Vines of each cultivar were manipulated with best known

Free access

W.R. Okie and Desmond R. Layne

training) were carried out by the commercial grower according to standard practices of the southeastern U.S. peach industry. Beginning in 2002 (Watsonia planting) or 2003 (Cash planting), fruit evaluations began on a weekly basis each summer through the end

Free access

Rafel Socias i Company, Ossama Kodad, José M. Alonso, and Antonio J. Felipe

Nut and fruit evaluation has been done through 7 years according to the IPGRI and UPOV descriptors. Nuts show a very good aspect and good size (4.9 ± 0.5 g). The shell is hard (shelling percentage of 24%), adapted to the Spanish industry. Kernels also

Free access

Charles F. Forney

effects of storage relative humidity (RH) on the marketability ( A–B ), decay ( C–D ), physiological breakdown ( E–F ), fresh weight loss ( G–H ), and firmness ( I–J ) of cranberry fruit evaluated immediately after storage of up to 6 months or after

Free access

Rafel Socias i Company, Ossama Kodad, José M. Ansón, and José M. Alonso

cultivar, Guara ( Alonso et al., 2015 ). Industrial Quality and Composition Nut and fruit evaluation has been done through 7 years according to the IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, now Bioversity) and UPOV (Union pour la Protection

Free access

John R. Clark and Paul J. Sandefur

, mealiness, and taste were subjectively rated on a scale from 0 (worst) to 10 (best). Photographs were taken of all fruit evaluated in 2011 using a Beseler CS-14 copy stand (Charles Beseler Co., Stroudsburg, PA) and a Nikon D70s digital camera (Nikon

Free access

Ralph Scorza, Michel Ravelonandro, Ann Callahan, Ioan Zagrai, Jaroslav Polak, Tadeuz Malinowski, Mariano Cambra, Laurene Levy, Vern Damsteegt, Boris Krška, John Cordts, Dennis Gonsalves, and Chris Dardick

environmental conditions, ‘HoneySweet’ fruit ripen in early- to mid-August or ≈10–20 d before the ripening of ‘Stanley’ plum. ‘HoneySweet’ fruit evaluated in Kearneysville, WV, are medium to large in size with an average weight of 60 g (≈2 oz) and average