Articles

EFFECTS OF TREE DENSITY AND TREE SHAPE ON APPLE ORCHARD PERFORMANCE

Article number
732_61
Pages
405 – 414
Language
English
Abstract
A replicated field trial compared 8 tree densities (range 598-5382 trees/ha) and two tree shapes (conic and V) with 4 apple cultivars (‘Gala’, ‘McIntosh’, ‘Empire’ and ‘Fuji’). At the lowest 2 densities, trees were planted on ‘M.7’ rootstocks (598 trees/ha) and ‘M.26’ rootstocks (840 trees/ha). At all the higher densities, trees were planted on ‘M.9’. After 7 years, there was a strong negative effect of tree planting density on trunk cross-sectional area.
Among M.9 treatments, the highest planting density produced trees about 1/3 the size of the lowest planting density.
The highest density system achieved a yield of 50 t/ha in the fourth year while the lowest density system never surpassed 25 t/ha.
Tree density had a highly significant negative effect on cumulative yield per tree, but had a highly significant positive effect on yield per hectare.
The cumulative yield of the highest tree density was 3 times greater than the lowest density.
There was a significant interaction of tree shape and tree density on cumulative yield.
At the higher tree densities, the V-shape had lower cumulative yield than the conic shape while at lower tree densities the V-shape was superior to the conic shape.
Tree density had a strong effect on canopy light interception from year 2 through 7. The highest tree density achieved 60% canopy light interception by year 6. There was no effect of tree shape on light interception until year 4 after which the V-shape surpassed the conic shape at similar densities.
Cumulative yield was a function of light intercepted.
However, there was a significant interaction with tree shape.
The V-shape intercepted more light, but at high tree densities, it had lower yield than the conic shaped trees.
Increasing tree density had a negative effect on partitioning index of ‘M.9’. At the highest tree density the partitioning index of ‘M.9’ was reduced to a similar level as ‘M.7’.

Publication
Authors
T.L. Robinson
Keywords
Malus × domestica, planting system, rootstock, pruning, training, light interception, light conversion efficiency, partitioning index
Full text
Online Articles (104)
D. Johnson | J.E. Spencer | K. Tobutt | A.D. Webster
T. Robinson | L. Anderson | W. Autio | B. Barrit | J. Cline | W. Cowgill | R. Crassweller | C. Embree | D. Ferree | E. Garcia | G. Greene | C. Hampson | K. Kosola | M. Parker | R. Perry | T. Roper | M. Warmund
W.R. Autio | B.H. Barritt | J.A. Cline | R.M. Crassweller | C.G. Embree | D.C. Ferree | M.E. Garcia | G.M. Greene | E.E. Hoover | R.S. Johnson | K. Kosola | J. Masabni | M.L. Parker | R.L. Perry | G.L. Reighard | T.L. Robinson | S.D. Seeley | M. Warmund
W.R. Autio | B.H. Barritt | J.A. Cline | R.M. Crassweller | C.G. Embree | D.C. Ferree | M.E. Garcia | G.M. Greene | E.E. Hoover | R.S. Johnson | K. Kosola | J. Masabni | M.L. Parker | R.L. Perry | G.L. Reighard | T.L. Robinson | S.D. Seeley | M. Warmund
A. Pietranek | E. Jadczuk | A. Sadowski | C. Piestrzeniewicz
C. Xiloyannis | B. Dichio | A.C. Tuzio | M. Kleinhentz | G. Salesses | J. Gomez-Aparisi | M.J. Rubio-Cabetas | D. Esmenjaud
I. Botu | S. Preda | E. Turcu | G. Achim | M. Botu
G.L. Reighard | R.L. Andersen | J. Anderson | T. Beckman | T. Baker | R. Belding | G. Brown | P. Byers | W. Cowgill | D. Deyton | E. Durner | A. Erb | D.C. Ferree | A. Gaus | R. Godin | R. Hayden | P. Hirst | S. Kadir | M. Kaps | H. Larsen
R. Mády | P. Klincsek | ZS. Szani | T. Szabó | Z. Erdős | I. Skola
A.S.A. Santos | R.S.S. Ribeiro | J.L. Lousada | A.-M. Pereira
S. Cerović | J. Ninić-Todorović | B. Golosin | V. Ognjanov | S. Bijelić
M. Soltész | Z. Szabó | J. Nyéki
F. Strikić | M. Radunić | J. Ro¿in
T. Strissel | U. Hoyer | C. Zistler | D. Treutter | H. Halbwirth | K. Stich
G. Reginato | V.G. de Cortázar | H. Lázaro
H. Bessho | K. Kudo | J. Omori | Y. Inomata | M. Wada | T. Masuda | Y. Nakamoto | H. Fujisawa | Y. Suzuki
G. Stoimenov | Y. Kirkova | N. Kolev | M. Gospodinova