Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for :
- Author or Editor: Donald Sowers x
- Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science x
The relationship between peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] fruit position and fruit weight (FW) was studied in experiments involving thinned vs. nonthinned fruiting shoots, shoots with and without axillary shoots, and trees with varying crop densities (CDs). FW was not consistently related to position on the shoot, and the influence of fruit position varied depending on the presence of axillary shoots on the fruiting shoot. FW was best related to fruiting shoot length and total shoot length per fruit (1-year-old plus current-season wood). Mean FW was also influenced by the number of fruit per shoot × CD interaction, a result indicating that FW depends on photosynthate from leaves in the immediate vicinity of the fruit as well as photosynthate from more distant parts of the tree.
Twenty-eight-year-old `Starkrimson Delicious' and 10-year-old `Fullred Delicious' apple (Malus domestics Borkh.) trees were spur-pruned in 1986 and 1987 and/or treated with 500 mg BA + GA4+7/liter in 1986 in an attempt to improve spur growth and increase fruit weight. All treatment combinations generally failed to improve yield or fruit size. BA + GA4+7 reduced yield and fruit weight and increased the number of pygmy fruit in 1986, but had little effect on fruiting or vegetative growth for 3 years after treatment. Spur-pruning reduced spur density in 1986 and 1987 and increased yield, but not fruit weight, in 1987. Although spur-pruning improved spur length, spur bud diameter, leaf area per spur, and leaf dry weight per spur, fruit weight was not improved. Chemical names used: N-(phenylmethyl)-1H -purine-6-amine [benzyladenine (BA)]; gibberellin (GA4+7).
Three-year-old `Campbell Redchief Delicious'/MM.111 [Malus domestica (Borkh.)] trees were subjected to a factorial arrangement of annual pruning treatments (removal of excess scaffold limbs vs. no removal, heading the terminal extension shoot on scaffold limbs vs. no heading) plus a treatment involving gradual removal of excess scaffold limbs. Six years after treatments were initiated, pruning treatment did not influence tree height or trunk size. Tree spread was greatest for nonheaded trees. Although yield, yield efficiency, and gross returns were reduced by either type of pruning, there was significant interaction between limb removal and heading. Compared to no limb removal or heading, limb removal plus heading reduced cumulative gross returns by ≈ $12,800/ha.
Girdled or nongirdled `Biscoe' peach (Prunus persica [L.] Batsch) secondary scaffold branches were covered with shade fabric to provide a range of photosynthetic photon flux densities (PPFD) from 44 to 20 days before harvest (DBH), from 20 to 0 DBH or 44 to 0 DBH. Fruit quality was affected differently by the various periods of shade during the final swell of fruit development. Shading 40 to 20 DBH did not affect fruit weight or quality, whereas shading 44 to 0 DBH had the greatest effect on fruit weight and quality. Fruit quality was generally similar on branches exposed to 100% and 45% incident PPFD (IPPFD). Fruit on” girdled branches generally responded to shade more than fruit on nongirdled branches. Fruit weight was positively related to percent IPPFD for girdfed but not nongirdled branches shaded 20 to 0 DBH and 44 to DBH. On nongirdled branches, fruit exposed to 45% IPPFD for 44 to 0 DBH had 14% less red color and 21% lower soluble solids content (SSC) than nonshaded fruit. Harvest was delayed >10 days and preharvest fruit drop was increased by shading to <23% IPPFD. Shading branches for 20 to 0 or 44 to 0 DBH altered the relationship between flesh firmness and ground color: Firmness declined as ground color changed from green to yellow for fruit shaded 44 to 20 DBH, but firmness declined with little change in ground color for fruit shaded 20 to 0 or 44 to 0 DBH. Girdling results indicated that fruit weight and SSC partially depended on photosynthate from nonshaded portions of the canopy, whereas fruit redness, days from bloom to harvest, and ground color depended on PPFD in the vicinity of the fruit.
Five apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) cultivars were treated with dicamba at concentrations of 0 to 200 mg·liter-1 during 3 years. Although the response varied with cultivar, dose, and year, dicamba always delayed fruit abscission. At similar concentrations, dicamba usually reduced fruit drop more than NAA, but less than fenoprop. Dicamba at 10 mg·liter-1 effectively delayed drop of `Delicious', whereas 20 to 30 mg·liter-1 was required for `Red Yorking', `Rome', `Winesap', and `Stayman'. Dicamba did not influence flesh firmness, soluble solids content, water core, or starch content at harvest or after storage. Chemical names used: naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA); 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)propionic acid (fenoprop); 3,6dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (dicamba).