Effects of defruiting, scoring, defoliation and shading on the carbohydrate content of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple trees

Hennerty, M. J.; Forshey, C. G.

doi:10.1080/00221589.1971.11514394

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reserves are probably only important in the very earliest stages of growth in spring (Hansen 1971;Kandiah 1979a) and there is evidence that carbohydrate reserves do not always influence growth the following season (Hennerty & Forshey 1971;Scholefield et al 1978;Avery et al 1979;Priestley 1981). Walton et al (1999) have estimated the cost of apple fruit growth of an average 'Braeburn' apple to be 33.3 g glucose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in non‐structural carbohydrate concentration in 1‐year‐old shoots of ‘Braeburn’ apple(Malus domestica)over two consecutive years

McQueen

Minchin

Silvester

2004

New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents patterns of change in non-structural carbohydrate concentrations of 1-year-old shoots over a 2-year period for 'Braeburn' apple trees (Malus domestica) growing in the Waikato region of New Zealand. Carbohydrates analysed by enzymatic analysis included starch, sorbitol, sucrose, glucose, and fructose. Sorbitol concentrations were found to be higher than starch for most periods of the year and sorbitol comprised the majority of the total carbohydrates. Starch concentrations were never completely depleted, even during periods of rapid growth. These patterns of carbohydrate change were similar to those reported from Northern Hemisphere studies for a variety of deciduous fruit tree species, indicating that carbohydrate changes in New Zealand trees are comparable with trees worldwide, despite the long period of leaf retention after harvest in New Zealand.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in non‐structural carbohydrate concentration in 1‐year‐old shoots of ‘Braeburn’ apple(Malus domestica)over two consecutive years

McQueen

Minchin

Silvester

2004

New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of girdling on tree growth and fruit quality attributes, particularly fruit color in apples, has been studied by various researchers, with both consistent and contradictory results. Early spring trunk girdling increased fruit set and flower bud formation and reduced vegetative growth on apple trees (Autio and Greene, 1994;Greene and Lord, 1983;Hennerty and Forshey, 1971;Hoying and Robinson, 1992). Schechter et al (1994) reported that fruit on girdled limbs had higher fruit dry weight and dry weight concentration than on nongirdled limbs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rootstock, Canopy Architecture, Bark Girdling, and Scoring Influence on Growth, Productivity, and Fruit Quality at Harvest in ‘Aztec Fuji’ Apple

Fallahi¹,

Kiester²,

Fallahi³

et al. 2018

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing scarcity of land and water for agriculture mandates an efficient use of these natural resources. Establishment of high-density orchards with the use of a size-controlling rootstock, in combination with a suitable canopy architecture, is an efficient method for fruit production. However, less attention has been paid to the use of size-controlling practices such as trunk girdling in these modern orchard systems. The impacts of two rootstocks, two tree architectures, and three levels of bark cambium cuts (girdling or scoring) on growth, yield, fruit quality attributes at harvest, and leaf nitrogen (N) in 'Aztec Fuji' apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) were studied in 2015 and 2016. Trees on Nic 29 had larger canopies, higher yields, and larger fruit, but lower fruit color, sunburn, and firmness than those on Bud 9. Trees with a tall spindle (TS) architecture had higher yield in 2016, higher fruit soluble solids and firmness in 2015, higher fruit russet in 2016, but shorter terminal growth in both 2015 and 2016 and lower leaf N in 2015 than did those with a central leader (CL) training system. Trees receiving a bark girdling in 2015 (BG15) or score girdling in 2015 and 2016 (SG1516) had significantly higher yield than trees on nongirdled trees (NOGD) in 2016. Bark girdling or score girdling in 2015 (BG15 or SG15) increased fruit weight (size), color, and firmness at harvest in the same year, although differences for score girdling were not always significant. However, BG15 or SG15 did not have a ''carryover'' effect and did not affect fruit size, color, or firmness at harvest in 2016. When bark scoring was repeated in 2016 (SG1516), fruit size was increased in 2016. On the basis of the results of this 2-year study, it appears that bark girdling in one year is sufficient to increase fruit size of the current year and the yield in the following year. If larger fruit size is the critical objective of fruit production, annual score girdling needs to be practiced. However, a further long-term study is needed to monitor the carryover effects of cambium girdling and scoring on tree performance and fruit quality attributes in the subsequent years.

show abstract

“…have shown the general seasonal pattern of a rapid decline of reserves from dormant-season levels beginning when initial spring growth occurs (Hennerty and Forshey, 1971;Priestley, 1960Priestley, , 1963. By bloom or shortly thereafter, the reserves reach a minimum, after which they gradually increase over the season, peaking at leaf fall.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the total pool of reserves (total tissue weight × tissue reserves/unit weight) or total carbohydrates per growing sink may be more important than the reserves per unit weight of tissue, although data on total pools are lacking. Priestley (1960Priestley ( , 1963Priestley ( , 1970 and Hennerty and Forshey (1971) found that extractable reserves per unit weight of tissue were generally quite stable in response to stresses or manipulations, such as shading or defruiting, designed to affect carbon reserves. However, total tree growth (i.e., the "pool") responded directly to the treatments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and Modeling of Carbon Balance of the Apple Tree

Lakso¹,

Wünsche²,

Palmer³

et al. 1999

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of defruiting, scoring, defoliation and shading on the carbohydrate content of ‘Golden Delicious’ apple trees

Cited by 24 publications

References 1 publication

Changes in non‐structural carbohydrate concentration in 1‐year‐old shoots of ‘Braeburn’ apple(Malus domestica)over two consecutive years

Changes in non‐structural carbohydrate concentration in 1‐year‐old shoots of ‘Braeburn’ apple(Malus domestica)over two consecutive years

Rootstock, Canopy Architecture, Bark Girdling, and Scoring Influence on Growth, Productivity, and Fruit Quality at Harvest in ‘Aztec Fuji’ Apple

Measurement and Modeling of Carbon Balance of the Apple Tree

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About