The Relationship of Granny Smith Apple Tree Growth and Early Cropping to Planting Density and Rectangularity

Cripps, J. E. L.; Melville, Frank; Nicol, H. I.

doi:10.1080/00221589.1975.11514638

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The positive relationship of yield and tree density reported here is supported by other studies that indicate that, in the first 10 years of an orchard's life, tree number is the prime determinant of yield (Cripps et al, 1975;Ferree, 1980;Palmer, 1988;Parry, 1978;Wertheim et al, 1986;Westwood et al, 1976). This relationship should allow the prediction of the yields at other tree densities when grown under conditions similar to this experiment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Canopy Development, Yield, and Fruit Quality of `Empire' and `Delicious' Apple Trees Grown in Four Orchard Production Systems for Ten Years

Robinson¹,

Lakso²,

Carpenter³

1991

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field planting of `Empire' and `Redchief Delicious' apple trees (Malus domestics Borkh.) was established in 1978 to evaluate four planting systems: 1) slender spindle/M.9, 2) Y-trellis/M.26, 3) central leader/M.9/MM.111, and 4) central leader/M.7a. During the first 5 years, yields per hectare for `Empire' were positively correlated with tree density. In the second 5 years, the Y-trellis/M.26 trees produced the highest yields while yields of the other systems continued to be related to tree density. Cumulative yields were highest with the Y-trellis/M.26 trees. With `Delicious', the Y-trellis/M.26 yields were greatest during all 10 years despite lower tree density than the slender spindle/M.9. Yields of `Delicious' with the other three systems were a function of tree density during the 10 years. At maturity, canopy volume per tree was greatest on the central leader/M.7a trees and smallest on the slender spindle/M.9 trees; however, there were no significant differences in canopy volume per hectare between the systems despite large differences in yield. Trunk cross sectional area (TCA) per hectare was greatest with the Y-trellis/M.26 trees and smallest with the central leader/M.7 trees. Yield was highly correlated to TCA/ha. Yield efficiency with `Empire' was greatest for the slender spindle/M.9 system, followed by the Y-trellis/M.26, central leader/M.9/MM.111, respectively. With both cultivars, the central leader/M.7a system had the lowest yield efficiency. With `Delicious', there were no differences in yield efficiency for the other three systems. The greater yield of the Y-trellis/M.26 system was the result of greater TCA/ha and not greater efficiency. `Empire' fruit size was largest on the central leader/M.7a and the central leader/M.9/MM.111 trees and smallest on the slender spindle/M.9 and the Y-trellis/M.26 trees. With `Delicious', fruit size was larger with the Y-trellis/M.26 trees than the other systems. When fruit size was adjusted for crop density, there were no significant differences due to system with `Empire', but with `Delicious' the Y-trellis/M.26 trees had larger adjusted fruit size than the other systems. Crop density calculated using TCA correlated better to fruit size than did crop density calculated using annual increase in TCA, canopy volume, or land area. Fruit color and quality with `Redchief Delicious' were not influenced by system. With `Empire', average fruit color and soluble solids content were lower for the Y-trellis/M.26 and slender spindle/M.9 in some years when canopy density was allowed to become. excessive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Canopy Development, Yield, and Fruit Quality of `Empire' and `Delicious' Apple Trees Grown in Four Orchard Production Systems for Ten Years

Robinson¹,

Lakso²,

Carpenter³

1991

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Summer pruning has often been recommended in high density plantings to restrict tree size, but whether it does so better than dormant pruning is subject to debate (Mika, 1986;Saure, 1987). Close in-row spacing has previously been found to reduce TCA and encourage undesirable "top heavy" growth (Cripps et al, 1975;Palmer et al, 1992;Parry, 1981).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canopy Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of 'Royal Gala' Apple Trees Grown for Eight Years in Five Tree Training Systems

Hampson¹,

Quamme²,

Brownlee³

2002

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1993, a planting of virus-free 'Royal Gala' apple (Malu×domestica Borkh.) on 'M.9' rootstock was established at Summerland, B.C., Canada, to determine whether angled-canopy training systems could improve orchard tree performance relative to slender spindles. The trees were trained in one of five ways: slender spindle (SS), Geneva Y-trellis (GY), a modified Solen training we called 'Solen Y-trellis' (SY), or V-trellis (LDV), all at the same spacing (1.2 m × 2.8 m), giving a planting density of 2976 trees/ha. In addition, a higher density (7143 trees/ha) version of the V-trellis (HDV) was planted to gauge the performance of this system at densities approaching those of local super spindle orchards. The plots were drip-irrigated and hand-thinned. No summer pruning was done. After 8 years, differences among training systems at the same density and spacing were small and few. The two Y-shaped training systems had 11% to 14% greater cumulative yield/ha than the SS, but did not intercept significantly more light at maturity. No consistent differences occurred in fruit size or the percentage of fruit with delayed color development among the four training systems at the same density. Relative to the LDV, the HDV yielded less per tree, but far more per hectare, particularly in the first 3 years. After 8 years, the cumulative yield/ha was still 65% greater than with LDV. Yield efficiency was unaffected by tree density. Fruit size on HDV ranked lowest among the systems nearly every year, but was still commercially acceptable. The HDV intercepted more light (73%) than SS (53%). The percentage of fruit with delayed color development in HDV was not significantly different from that for LDV in most years. The trees in HDV were difficult to contain within their allotted space without summer pruning. The substantially similar performance of all the training systems (at a given density, and with minimal pruning) suggests that cost and ease of management should be the decisive factors when choosing a tree training method.

show abstract

“…When this is done, both density and rectangularity are changed. Rectangularity (the ratio of alley width to in-row spacing) affects both interception and distribution of light, and influences yield, tree size, alternate bearing, flower density, and fruit color in apple (Callesen and Wagenmakers, 1989;Cripps et al, 1975;Wagenmakers and Callesen, 1995;Wertheim, 1985). Rectangularity effects are sometimes large, e.g., 30% to 40% reduction in yield (see Parry, 1978, and references therein).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rectangularity is usually ignored in investigations comparing tree density. Both Cripps et al (1975) and Vittrup Christensen (1979) held rectangularity constant, but the latter did not prune the trees or thin the fruit, so fruit quality effects could not be assessed, and the former report covered only three cropping years. The adverse effects of high rectangularity increase as the orchard ages and as planting density increases (Wagenmakers andCallesen, 1989, 1995).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varying Density with Constant Rectangularity: II. Effects on Apple Tree Yield, Fruit Size, and Fruit Color Development in Three Training Systems over Ten Years

Hampson¹,

Quamme²,

Kappel³

et al. 2004

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of increasing planting density at constant rectangularity on the fruit yield, fruit size, and fruit color of apple [Malus ×sylvestris (L) var. domestica (Borkh.) Mansf.] in three training systems (slender spindle, tall spindle, and Geneva Y trellis) was assessed for 10 years. Five tree densities (from 1125 to 3226 trees/ha) and two cultivars (Royal Gala and Summerland McIntosh) were tested in a fully guarded split-split plot design. Density was the most influential factor. As tree density increased, per-tree yield decreased, but yield per unit area increased. The relation between cumulative yield per ha and tree density was linear at the outset of the trial, but soon became curvilinear, as incremental yield diminished with increasing tree density. The chief advantage of high density planting was a large increase in early fruit yield. In later years, reductions in cumulative yield efficiency, and in fruit color for `Summerland McIntosh', began to appear at the highest density. Training system had no influence on productivity for the first 5 years. During the second half of the trial, fruit yield per tree was greater for the Y trellis than for either spindle form at lower densities but not at higher densities. The slender and tall spindles were similar in nearly all aspects of performance, including yield. `Summerland McIntosh' yielded almost 40% less than `Royal Gala' and seemed more sensitive to the adverse effects of high tree density on fruit color.

show abstract

The Relationship of Granny Smith Apple Tree Growth and Early Cropping to Planting Density and Rectangularity

Cited by 16 publications

References 4 publications

Canopy Development, Yield, and Fruit Quality of `Empire' and `Delicious' Apple Trees Grown in Four Orchard Production Systems for Ten Years

Canopy Development, Yield, and Fruit Quality of `Empire' and `Delicious' Apple Trees Grown in Four Orchard Production Systems for Ten Years

Canopy Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of 'Royal Gala' Apple Trees Grown for Eight Years in Five Tree Training Systems

Varying Density with Constant Rectangularity: II. Effects on Apple Tree Yield, Fruit Size, and Fruit Color Development in Three Training Systems over Ten Years

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About