inadequate crop load management: fruit size and SSC (in this study we use SSC as a proxy for sweetness). This article estimates the potential impact on grower profits when the number of fruit per tree is not adequately managed using two different
fruit to chemical thinning strategies has limited commercial adoption. Presently, the industry largely relies on pruning for crop load management (L. Long, personal communication). Ultimately, the decision to impose a crop load management strategy, and
distance from the “none” anchor. Descriptive analysis data were analyzed using discriminant analysis with treatment or year as the grouping factor. Results Treatment effects on crop load. Floor management treatments had an inconsistent effect on LA:Y over
The development of novel crop load management techniques will be critical to the adoption and success of high density sweet cherry orchard systems based on new clonal rootstocks. Herein we report on a comparison of potential means of balancing crop load of `Bing' sweet cherry grown on the productive and precocious rootstocks `Gisela 5' and `Gisela 6'. In 2002, thinning treatments were applied to entire trees and consisted of an unthinned control (C), and manual removal of 50% of the blossoms (B) or 50% of 2-year-old and older fruiting spurs (S), throughout the tree. In 2003 all trees were left unthinned to characterize the carry-over effect of thinning treatment in 2002. In 2002, compared to C, thinned trees had 38% to 49% fewer fruit per tree, 22% to 42% lower yield, 8% to 26% higher fruit weight, and 2% to 10% larger fruit diameter. S and B treatments reduced yield by 42% and 22% on `Gisela 5' and by 40% and 31% on `Gisela 6', respectively. `Gisela 5'-rooted trees showed greater improvements in fruit quality than did trees on `Gisela 6'. Compared to C-, S-, and B-treated trees on `Gisela 5' yielded fruit that was 15% and 26% heavier, respectively. Yield of fruit ≥25.5 mm diameter was increased by 240% by S and 880% by B, though yield of this size fruit was still low (1.5 and 5.2 kg/tree, respectively). Neither technique had any beneficial carryover effect in the year following treatment despite S trees bearing about 25% fewer fruit than B and C trees. In both years, `Gisela 5'-rooted trees bore about 15% fewer fruit than trees on `Gisela 6'. Compared to `Gisela 5', `Gisela 6'-rooted trees were about 41%, 46%, and 24% more productive for C, S, and B, respectively. Number of fruit/tree in 2003 was within 4% and 8% of the previous year on `Gisela 6' and `Gisela 5', respectively. Crop value analyses suggest growers would be rewarded for producing high yields of medium size fruit (e.g., 21.5 to 25.4 mm) compared to low yields of high quality fruit.
tree and fruit responses to early termination of irrigation in a semi-arid environment HortScience 36 1197 1201 Einhorn, T.C. Laraway, D. Turner, J. 2011 Crop load management does not consistently improve crop value of ‘Sweetheart’/‘Mazzard’ sweet
case study cooperators reported that blossom string thinning impacted orchard management by making crop load management more efficient and by reducing follow-up hand-thinning time. Eighty percent of the growers noted that fruit from thinned trees were
Three experiments were performed to determine if pruning treatments could reduce the need for peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] fruit thinning without reducing average fruit weight. To determine if dormant shoot heading affected fruit size simply by reducing the number of flowers per tree, all 1-year-old shoots on `Cresthaven' trees were headed by 50% or blossoms were removed from the terminal half of each shoot. At 45 days after full bloom, all trees were hand-thinned to obtain predetermined crop densities. Average fruit weight was highest on trees with blossom removal, but crop value and net profit were highest for nontreated trees. To determine the influence of treatment severity on fruit weight, all shoots on `Cresthaven' trees were blossom-thinned or headed to remove blossoms on varying proportions of each shoot. Fruit set and the number of fruit removed during postbloom thinning decreased as the percentage of a shoot that was headed or blossom-thinned increased. Average fruit weight at harvest and crop value were higher for trees with blossom removal than for trees with headed shoots. Fruit weight and crop value were not affected by the percentage of the shoot treated. In the final experiment, all shoots on `Cresthaven' trees were headed by 50% or were not headed. Heading of shoots reduced fruit set, number of fruits removed at thinning, and thinning time per tree, but yield, crop density, and average fruit weight were not affected by heading. Profit was increased by shoot heading one of the 3 years. Results from this study indicate that heading peach shoots by 50% while dormant pruning can reduce thinning costs without reducing fruit size, but a similar level of labor-intensive blossom removal may reduce postbloom thinning costs and improve fruit size.
production before the trees have developed a complete canopy can permanently limit the final tree size and consequently, can impact future productivity ( Castro et al., 2015 ). Crop load management is particularly important for ‘Honeycrisp’ because it can
Insufficient crop-load, as a result of excessive fruit-drop, can reduce pecan orchard profitability. Four fruit-drops typically occur between flowering and fruit ripening ( Hamilton, 1942 ; Romberg and Smith, 1946 ; Sparks and Heath, 1972
conservation, N and P loadings, and crop production. Given the demonstrated benefits of drainage management strategies in other soil-hydrologic regions of the United States., these strategies have the potential to reduce the mass of nutrients that can leach or