Growth Pattern and Phenological Stages of Early-maturing Peach Trees Under a Mediterranean Climate

Abstract

<jats:p>The phenological stages of early-maturing peach trees were described using the traditional nomenclature of Baggiolini and according to the BBCH General Scale. The heat requirement of each stage was calculated as growing degree hours (GDH) and growing degree days (GDD). The annual growth pattern of trunk, shoot, and fruit was also studied. After dormancy breaking involving 225 chilling units, this early peach cultivar required ≈6244 GDH to reach full bloom and 27106 GDH before the fruit could be harvested. In the case of GDD, the heat requirements were 329 and 1246 for full bloom and fruit harvest, respectively. According to plant growth measurements, shoot growth lasted ≈7 months with a significant increase in the growth rate after fruit harvest reaching a maximum value in July. Trunk growth followed a similar annual pattern as that of the shoots but with its maximum rate occurring ≈30 days latter. Fruit growth, which lasted an average of 89 days from full bloom to harvesting, took place under mild climatic conditions (10 Feb. to 10 May) coinciding with only 30% of the total annual shoot length. This pattern of reproductive and vegetative growth pointed to the interest of redirecting regulated deficit irrigation practices in early-maturing cultivars toward postharvest water-saving strategies, but only to the extent that any limitation of shoot and trunk growth does not adversely affect the productivity of the following year.</jats:p>

Phenotypic diversity and relationships of fruit quality traits in peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] breeding progenies

“…Although blooming and harvesting time may change every year depending on the environmental conditions, especially temperature (Sánchez-Pérez et al 2007;Mounzer et al 2008;Ruiz and Egea 2008), the fruit development period (number of days from full bloom to maturity) remained more or less stable for each seedling over the 3 years of study (data not shown). The peach fruit development period is highly dependent on cultivar (Jackson and Sherman 1980;Muñoz et al 1986;Cunha et al 2007;Cheng 2008;Mounzer et al 2008), however, previous research has shown an influence of spring temperatures on the harvest date of peach cultivars (López and DeJong 2007).…”

“…The peach fruit development period is highly dependent on cultivar (Jackson and Sherman 1980;Muñoz et al 1986;Cunha et al 2007;Cheng 2008;Mounzer et al 2008), however, previous research has shown an influence of spring temperatures on the harvest date of peach cultivars (López and DeJong 2007). Very early-maturing, as well as very late-maturing peach genotypes, are of considerable interest for the peach industry in the Mediterranean area (Caruso and Sottile 1999), and the main difference between these genotypes is the length of their fruit development period (Mounzer et al 2008). In the present work, the fruit development period ranged from 80 to 130 days for all the progenies, except for 'Andross' 9 'Calante' which showed the longest period (approximately 150 days).…”

“…However, a significant positive correlation (P B 0.01) was observed for some progenies as 'Andross' 9 'Rich Lady' (r = 0.508), 'Babygold-9' 9 'Crown Princess' (r = 0.481) and 'Red Top' 9 'VAC-9513' (r = 0.501) indicating the tendency of larger fruits to have higher sugar contents. This result is expected since amount of translocated carbohydrates contributing to SSC determines fruit growth rate (Mounzer et al 2008), and at the same time, fruit size increases sink strength to attract sucrose and sorbitol from the plant sources (Lo Bianco and Rieger 2006). Contrary, yield showed a significant negative correlation versus SSC, showing the sink competition among fruits by the assimilate supply (Mounzer et al 2008).…”

“…This result is expected since amount of translocated carbohydrates contributing to SSC determines fruit growth rate (Mounzer et al 2008), and at the same time, fruit size increases sink strength to attract sucrose and sorbitol from the plant sources (Lo Bianco and Rieger 2006). Contrary, yield showed a significant negative correlation versus SSC, showing the sink competition among fruits by the assimilate supply (Mounzer et al 2008). This effect was variable depending on the progeny, and higher coefficients (P B 0.01) were found in 'Venus' 9 'Big Top' (r = -0.460), 'VAC-9520' 9 'VAC-9517' (r = -0.560), 'O'Henry' 9 'VAC-9514' (r = -0.566) and 'O'Henry' 9 'VAC-9515' (r = -0.405) progenies.…”

Soft computing applied to stem water potential estimation: A fuzzy rule based approach

“…In peach trees, water deficits during the second fruit rapid growth phase are more harmful than in other phenological stages (Besset et al, 2001;Naor et al, 2005), and the postharvest phase is the most suitable period for applying irrigation deficits Mounzer et al, 2008). For the implementation of regulated deficit irrigation strategies, crop critical periods, the overlapping stages of vegetative and fruit growth and the exact plant response to water deficits under local conditions must be understood (Abrisqueta et al, 2010;Girona et al, 2003;Girona et al, 2005).…”