Theeffectofvaryingplantpopulationand spatial arrangement on the production of buttercup squash ( Cucurbitamaxima Duchesne) was examined. Plant populations were set between 0.2 and 6.2 plants/m 2 in rows 1.5 and 3.0 m apart and at equidistant spacing within and between rows. The spatial arrangement of the plants in the three planting patterns had little effect on the production and fruit size of the squash compared with the effects of plant population. It was concluded that squash exhibited high elasticity in relation to the spatial arrangement at planting with row width and rectangularity of planting having much less influence on production parameters than plant population. Increases in plant population gave a progressive decline in the size of the individual squash plants and the number and weight of the fruit. Fruit number/m 2 of fruit heavier than 0.8 kg increased from 1 to 2/m2 as populations increased from 023 to 2.5 plants/m 2 but they then declined. Average fruit weight declined from 1.9 kg at low plant populations of 0.2-0.4 plants/m 2 to 1.2 kg at populations 2.2-2.5 plants/m 2 , and below 1 kg ata plant population of 4 plants/m2 . Significant numbers of squash above 2 kg were only achieved at low populations and only obtained with a considerable loss of potential yield. H89053At low plant populations 3.0-m row plantings gave a greater percentage of larger fruit. As the plant populations increased the fruit size became more uniform. Total fruit yield increased to the highest calculated yield of 29.5 t/ha at a plant population of 3 plants/rn2 and then gradually declined. Above 2.2 plants/m 2 ,the crop yield was predominantly in the fruit size range of 0.9-1.1 kg/fruit and sowing plant populations above 2.2 plants/m2 would only be beneficial if this size of fruit was marketable. It is recommended buttercup squash be planted at populations of 1.8-2.2 plants/m 2 .

Vine growth, pruning requirements, yield, and postharvest storage of kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa) grown on five different vine support structures were compared over 5 years from grafting. Support structures were winged T-bars and pergolas (standard structures), Lincoln T-bars, divided T-bars, and A-frames. Cumulative length of fruiting canes in the 3 years to full canopy closure was greatest for Lincoln T-bars, A-frames, and pergolas, and least for winged and divided T-bars. The proportion of budbreak was higher on pergolas than on the three T-bar systems and was least on A-frames. Floral budbreak and flowers per floral shoot were also lower on A-frames than on the other systems. Cumulative yields of export fruit were highest for pergolas and winged T-bars, and lowest for A-frames. Differences in postharvest storage were detected between fruit from different structures, but these differences were not consistent among years. The time required to prune each vine was least for pergolas and winged Tbars. Vines on A-frame structures took substantially more time to prune than vines on pergola structures.