1992
DOI: 10.1080/00221589.1992.11516273
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of time of shading on flowering and yield of kiwifruit vines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
3

Year Published

1992
1992
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
22
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Ferguson 'Hayward' vines reduced fruit size and shoot dry weight in the current season, and reduced shoot survival and flower bud formation the following season (Grant & Ryugo 1984). Snelgar et al (1992a) shaded 'Hayward' vines to 45% of full sun and noted that shading before anthesis did not affect fruit fresh weight, whereas post-anthesis shading reduced fruit weight.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ferguson 'Hayward' vines reduced fruit size and shoot dry weight in the current season, and reduced shoot survival and flower bud formation the following season (Grant & Ryugo 1984). Snelgar et al (1992a) shaded 'Hayward' vines to 45% of full sun and noted that shading before anthesis did not affect fruit fresh weight, whereas post-anthesis shading reduced fruit weight.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, 'shading vines to 45% of full sun for periods of 11-14 weeks in New Zealand reduced the number of flowers/shoot. but not the percentage of flowering shoots (Snelgar et al 1992). …”
Section: Introducfionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this more consistent model was concerned with plant phenology, which is often considered to be predominantly temperatureregulated. The process we modelled, although strongly influenced by temperature, can also be affected by a number of vine-management factors such as the previous years crop load (Bürge et al 1987), the time that HC is applied (Henzell & Briscoe 1986), the time of winter pruning (Manson et al 1991), the level of solar radiation (Snelgar et al 1992b), and the time of cane growth during the previous summer (Snelgar et al 1992a). In view of this it may be unrealistic to expect a better fit from a model that is based solely on temperature and usage ofHC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%