Canopy Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of 'Royal Gala' Apple Trees Grown for Eight Years in Five Tree Training Systems

Abstract

<jats:p>In 1993, a planting of virus-free 'Royal Gala' apple (<jats:italic>Malu</jats:italic>×<jats:italic>domestica</jats:italic> Borkh.) on 'M.9' rootstock was established at Summerland, B.C., Canada, to determine whether angled-canopy training systems could improve orchard tree performance relative to slender spindles. The trees were trained in one of five ways: slender spindle (SS), Geneva Y-trellis (GY), a modified Solen training we called 'Solen Y-trellis' (SY), or V-trellis (LDV), all at the same spacing (1.2 m × 2.8 m), giving a planting density of 2976 trees/ha. In addition, a higher density (7143 trees/ha) version of the V-trellis (HDV) was planted to gauge the performance of this system at densities approaching those of local super spindle orchards. The plots were drip-irrigated and hand-thinned. No summer pruning was done. After 8 years, differences among training systems at the same density and spacing were small and few. The two Y-shaped training systems had 11% to 14% greater cumulative yield/ha than the SS, but did not intercept significantly more light at maturity. No consistent differences occurred in fruit size or the percentage of fruit with delayed color development among the four training systems at the same density. Relative to the LDV, the HDV yielded less per tree, but far more per hectare, particularly in the first 3 years. After 8 years, the cumulative yield/ha was still 65% greater than with LDV. Yield efficiency was unaffected by tree density. Fruit size on HDV ranked lowest among the systems nearly every year, but was still commercially acceptable. The HDV intercepted more light (73%) than SS (53%). The percentage of fruit with delayed color development in HDV was not significantly different from that for LDV in most years. The trees in HDV were difficult to contain within their allotted space without summer pruning. The substantially similar performance of all the training systems (at a given density, and with minimal pruning) suggests that cost and ease of management should be the decisive factors when choosing a tree training method.</jats:p>

Phenotypic Association of Multi-scale Architectural Traits with Canopy Volume and Yield: Moving Toward High-density Systems for Macadamia

“…The two smallest trees displayed a low canopy volume for different reasons; 'B63' was short with a rounded canopy, whereas the canopy of 'B80' was tall and narrow. The shape of the canopy can be very important for maximizing light interception and distribution; therefore, it should be studied in other highdensity crops (Hampson et al, 2002;Robinson, 2004). Modern apple orchards currently plant trees that have a thin canopy to enable highdensity planting (Robinson, 2006), similar to 'B80' in our study.…”

Long-term leaf mineral nutrition in ‘Pacific Gala’ apple (Malus×domesticaBorkh.) as affected by rootstock type and irrigation system during six stages of tree development

“…Tree canopy size in high-density orchards may be limited by rootstock, by training, and/or by pruning (Crowe, 1978;Robinson et al, 1991;Hampson et al, 2002;Sansavini et al, 1986), the use of plant growth regulators (Zimmerman and Steffens, 1995), or by deficit irrigation (Ebel et al, 1995;Marsal et al, 2001;Fallahi et al, 2007a). The use of size-controlling rootstocks is known to be the most efficient way to control tree growth.…”

Rootstock and Training System Affect Sweet Cherry Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality

“…Canopy architecture also affects tree productivity, production efficiency, and fruit quality in apple (Hampson et al, 2002;Robinson et al, 1991;Miller, 1984). Such information for sweet cherry, especially comparing the effects of new clonal rootstocks, is not yet available.…”