Long-Term Impacts of Tree Architectures and Branch Configurations on Tree Growth, Yield, Fruit Quality Attributes, and Leaf Minerals in “Aztec Fuji” Apple
- 1 Pomology and Viticulture Program, Department of Plant Sciences, Parma Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Parma, Idaho, USA
- 2 Pomology and Viticulture Program, Department of Plant Sciences, Parma Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Parma, Idaho, USA
- 3 Pomology and Viticulture Program, Department of Plant Sciences, Parma Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Parma, Idaho, USA
Abstract
Canopy and branch architectures in high-density orchards can be crucial in production and fruit quality. The influence of two canopy orientations (Upright and Tilted) in combination with two arm (branch) architectures (Shortened or Overlapped) on tree growth, yield components, fruit quality, and leaf mineral nutrients in an “Aztec Fuji” apple ( Malus domestica Bork.) high-density orchard was studied over five years. Tilted trees with shortened arm configuration (TilShArm) always had significantly larger trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) than Upright trees with an Overlapped arm configuration (UpOverArm) every year from 2012 to 2016. Trees with a TilShArm system had more cumulative fruit per tree than those with an Upright orientation. Trees with a tilted canopy (TilShArm and TilOverArm) tended to have higher yield per tree and yield per hectare than those with an upright system. Trees with a TilShArm system were more precocious and had more yield per tree than those with an upright canopy orientation in 2012. When values were polled over five years, trees with an upright canopy-shortened arm system (UpShArm) treatment had a lower biennial bearing index (BBI) than those with an upright canopy-overlapped system (UpOverArm). Trees receiving an arm shortening (UpShArm or TilShArm) configuration often had larger fruits than those with overlapped arms (UpOverArm and TilOverArm). Fruit from trees receiving an UpOverArm had higher fruit firmness than those from trees with other canopy-branch arrangements at harvest due to their smaller size. Fruit from trees with a TilShArm and TilOverArm had significantly higher water core and bitter pit but lower sunburn than trees with an upright canopy (UpShArm and UpOverArm). Leaves from trees with an UpOverArm canopy-branch configuration had the lowest leaf Ca but the highest leaf K and Fe concentrations among all treatments.
- Autio, W.R., Hayden, R.A., Micke, W.C. and Brown, G.R. (1996) Rootstock Affects Ripening, Color, and Shape of “Starkspur Supreme Delicious” Apples in the 1984 NC-140 Cooperative Planting. Fruit Variety Journal , 50, 45-53.
- Fallahi, E., Colt, W.M. and Fallahi, B. (2001) Optimum Ranges of Leaf Nitrogen for Yield, Fruit Quality, and Photosynthesis in “BC-2 Fuji”. Apple. Journal of American Pomology Society , 55, 68-75.
- Fallahi, E., Arzani, K. and Fallahi, B. (2013) 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. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology , 88, 685-692. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2013.11513025
- Hoying, S.A. (2012) Experiences with Support Systems for the Tall Spindle Apple Planting System. New York Fruit Quarterly , 20, 3-8.
- Hampson, C.R., Quamme, H.A. and Brownlee, R.T. (2002) Canopy Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of “Royal Gala” Apple Trees Grown for Eight Years in Five Tree Training Systems. Hort Science , 37, 627-631. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.37.4.627
- Dallabetta, N., Costa, F., Pasqualini, J., Wehrens, R., Noferini, M. and Costa, G. (2014) The Influence of Training System on Apple Fruit Quality. Acta Horticulturae , 1058, 55-62. https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2014.1058.4
- Gandev, S., Nanev, I, Savov, P.R., Isuf, E., Kornov, G. and Serbezova, D. (2016) The Effect of Three Training Systems on the Vegetative and Reproductive Habits of the Apple Cultivar “Braeburn” Grafted on M9 Rootstocks. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science , 22, 600-603.
- Kappel, F. and Quamme, H.A. (1993) Orchard Training Systems Influence Early Canopy Development and Light Microclimate within Apple Tree Canopies. Canadian Journal of Plant Science , 73, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps93-038
- He, L. and Schupp, J. (2018) Sensing and Automation in Pruning of Apple Trees: A Review. Agronomy , 8, Article 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8100211
- Robinson, T.L., Hoying, S.A. and Reginato, G.H. (2006) The Tall Spindle Apple Production System. New York Fruit Quarterly , 14, 21-28.
- Fallahi, E., Kiester, M.J., Fallahi, B. and Mahdavi, S. (2018) Rootstock, Canopy Architecture, Bark Girdling, and Scoring Influence on Growth, Productivity, and Fruit Quality at Harvest in “Aztec Fuji” Apple. HortScience , 53, 1629-1633. https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci13348-18