Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 459 items for :

  • crop load adjustment x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Tyler G. Berkey, Anna Katharine Mansfield, Steven D. Lerch, James M. Meyers, and Justine E. Vanden Heuvel

grapes indicates that crop load management techniques such as ST and CL often improve fruit quality of cultivars prone to overcropping, commercial producers must consider the economic trade-off between implementation costs and potential economic benefits

Free access

Richard P. Marini, John A. Barden, John A. Cline, Ronald L. Perry, and Terence Robinson

The influence of rootstock on average fruit weight was evaluated for a subset of data from a multilocation NC-140 apple [Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. var. domestica (Borkh.) Mansf.] rootstock trial. Data for eight dwarf rootstocks were collected at four locations for 2 years. Analysis of covariance was used to evaluate the effect of rootstock on average fruit weight when crop density or number of fruit per tree was included in the linear model as a covariate. When number of fruit harvested per tree was used as a covariate, average fruit weight was not affected by rootstock in either year in Ontario. In Michigan and Virginia, rootstock and number of fruit per tree, but not the rootstock × number of fruit interaction, were significant, so common slopes models were used to estimate least squares means for average fruit weight. In general, trees on M.27 and P.1 produced the smallest fruit, and trees on B.9, M.9 EMLA, and Mac.39 produced the largest fruit. In New York the interaction of rootstock × number of fruit was significant, so least squares means were estimated at three levels of number of fruit per tree. Both years, at all levels of number of fruit, trees on M.26 EMLA produced the smallest fruit and trees on M.27 EMLA produced the largest fruit. Average fruit weight was most affected by number of fruit per tree when Mark was the rootstock. In general, results were similar when crop density was used as the covariate, except that trees on M.27 EMLA did not produce small fruit in Michigan and Ontario.

Free access

Gabino H. Reginato, Víctor García de Cortázar, and Terence L. Robinson

years and cultivars, crop load of different trees was adjusted by hand thinning at the beginning of pit hardening to a wide range of crop loads, including crop loads that are usually used on trees destined for the export or processing market. PAR

Free access

Charles G. Embree, Marina T.D. Myra, Douglas S. Nichols, and A. Harrison Wright

‘Honeycrisp’ producers. To meet this challenge, we evaluated the impact of adjusting blossom density and subsequent crop load on growth, fruit quality, and return bloom. Materials and Methods Experimental site and design. The plot was located in

Full access

Todd C. Einhorn, Debra Laraway, and Janet Turner

, respectively. Whole trees were adjusted to three different crop load levels before bloom: control = unthinned, T1 = removal of half of the reproductive buds from all spurs, and T2 = removal of all but one reproductive bud from all spurs. Values are the means

Free access

Tory Schmidt, Don C. Elfving, James R. McFerson, and Matthew D. Whiting

. Trial designs for this and the 2005 ‘Fuji’ GA trials were simplified versions of the ‘Cameo’ GA trials; crop loads were still manually adjusted to 100%, 50%, or 0% levels, but only one timing of GA application, i.e., 10 mm, was imposed in a factorial

Full access

Thomas M. Kon and James R. Schupp

with excessive crop loads. Given the stringent fruit size and quality standards demanded by markets and the occasional failure of chemical thinners, hand-thinning is still an important method of crop load management. In general, thinning guidelines

Free access

Gerry Neilsen, Frank Kappel, and Denise Neilsen

been systematically assessed under Pacific Northwest growing conditions. Crop load adjustment has the potential to affect other cherry attributes such as soluble solids concentration (SSC), although effects are not always consistent ( Whiting et al

Free access

Alison L. Reeve, Patricia A. Skinkis, Amanda J. Vance, Katherine R. McLaughlin, Elizabeth Tomasino, Jungmin Lee, and Julie M. Tarara

−1 were not able to reach commercially accepted maturity in 2011. These results suggest that climate and variable seasonal weather serve as greater limitations to consistently ripening fruit, and that crop load adjustments can only affect TSS to a

Full access

J.R. Schupp, T. Auxt Baugher, S.S. Miller, R.M. Harsh, and K.M. Lesser

with cling peach production. The availability and efficacy of chemical thinning programs varies by crop, orchard, and season, therefore hand thinning is often required to adjust crop load for optimal fruit size and quality, and to promote return bloom