Super-high Density Planting of Fig (Ficus carica L.) for Early Recovery from Sick Soil and Low Temperature Injury

Abstract

We investigated the effect of super-high density planting for early recovery from sick soil and low temperature injury in fig (Ficus carica L. 'Masui Dauphine') over a five-year period. Towards this end, fig trees were planted at either 0.8 or 2.0 m planting distance (super-density planting), in comparison to the conventional 4.0 m planting distance on the continuous cropping field. It was observed that super-high density planting with 0.8 m was superior to 2.0 and 4.0 m planting distances for maintaining tree vigor and yields under continuous cropping conditions, suggesting the effectiveness of 0.8 m planting distance for early recovery from sick soil. There was no difference in the quality of fruit between trees grown at these two different planting distances. When trees were exposed to low temperature injury in a given year, notable reduction in yield was observed according to the length of the planting distances (i.e. 0.8 m < 2.0 m < 4.0 m). Furthermore, tree vigor and total yield were regained earlier in super-high density planting with 0.8 m planting distance relative to 2.0 and 4.0 m. After two years, the level of yield recovered from the 0.8 m treatment was similar to the yield before the onset of low temperature injury. There was no difference in the quality of fruit between trees grown at these two different planting distances. The results of this study indicated the effectiveness of 0.8 m planting distance for early recovery from sick soil and low temperature injury in fig cultivation.

Shoot Growth and Fruit Production of ‘Masui Dauphine’ Fig Trees Having High Limb Position with Downward Shoots

“…The internodes of shoots tended to be longer for novel trained trees and were significantly longer than controls in the trees with 0.6 m spacing. The shoot diameters tend to be larger with narrower tree spacing; this can be explained by enhanced shoot vigor with dense planting (Mano et al, 2011). The basal diameters of novel training shoots were significantly larger than in controls with 0.6 m and 6.6 m tree spacing.…”

Performance of Fig (Ficus carica L.) Under Different Planting Densities

“…The mean tree height, canopy spread and trunk circumference over the five year period were generally higher under higher tree densities of 1000 and 800 trees per hectare than lower tree densities, more so in the vigorous Poona cultivar than the less vigorous Deanna, as evident from tables 1 and 2. Mano et al, (2011) observed that, planting with 0.8 m distance within trees and 3.5 m in between rows was superior for maintaining tree vigor and yields under continuous cropping conditions as well as for early recovery from sick soil as compared to 2.0 and 4.0 m planting distances respectively in fig cultivar 'Masui Dauphine'. Kumar et al, (2014) also noted maximum leaf production, shoot growth, tree height and tree circumference under closer spacing in Deanna fig.…”

“…Similarly, other studies in fig (Kumar et al, 2014;Mano and Hamada, 2005;Hosomi et al, 2013) concluded that fruit quality parameters (TSS and titratable acidity) were unaffected by planting distances. However, Mano et al, (2011) noted significant differences in fruit quality parameters under closer planting distances in fig. They reported lower TSS, TA and antioxidants contents at 0.8m planting distance compared to 2 and 4m.…”

“…However, Hosomi et al, (2013) reported reduced size and weight of fruit under closer spacing in fig which could be due to change in lighting conditions which affected photosynthesis rate. Further, Mano et al, (2011) perceived that average size of fruits was unaffected by spacing treatments, however maximum mean yields were higher under closer spacing in fig. The trend in terms of mean fruit number was more or less same over the period of five years with respect to planting densities studied.…”

“…A few attempts have been made to relate this concept to fig (Kumar et al, 2014;Hosomi et al, 2013;Mano et al, 2011). The light interception by the tree canopy is determined by tree spacing, canopy density and height (Jackson, 1980).…”