Paper · 2017 · Acta Horticulturae

Precision thinning of ‘Royal Gala’ apple trees using the fruit growth model

A.D. Rufato; T.L. Robinson; L. Rufato

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

In 2013 we thinned mature 'Royal Gala' apple trees on M.9 rootstock using the precision thinning protocol developed by Robinson. To assess the initial flower bud load we counted the number of flower buds on 5 trees per treatment at the pink bud stage. We then thinned the trees with one of 2 thinning protocols using sequential chemical thinning sprays: 1) Promalin (benzyl adenine + GA 4+7 ) at full bloom (FB) followed by three successive sprays of benzyl adenine (BA)+carbaryl at petal fall, 12 mm fruit size and 18 mm fruit size; 2) BA at FB then three sprays of BA + carbaryl at petal fall, 12 and 18 mm; and 3) untreated control. After each spray we used the fruit growth rate model developed by Greene to predict cumulative thinning efficacy to that point. We implemented this model by tagging 15 representative spurs tree -1 on the 5 test trees of each treatment at full bloom. At petal fall each fruit within each tagged cluster was marked with a dot to identify its position in the cluster. On the third day after each thinner spray and the seventh day after each spray we measured the diameter of each fruit in the 15 clusters on each of the 5 trees. These data were analyzed with the fruit growth rate model to determine the number of fruits still growing on the tree after each spray. The model indicated that BA sprayed at FB reduced the fruit number tree -1 32% compared to the untreated control. Promalin at FB did not reduce fruit number tree -1 . When the successive thinning treatments were completed and fruits were 25 mm diameter we again measured fruit diameters of the tagged spurs and calculated the number of fruits persisting on each tree. Treatment 2 had the lowest fruit number tree -1 (44% of the untreated control) while Treatment 1 had slightly greater fruit number tree -1 than treatment 1 (52% of the untreated control). At harvest the final number of fruits per trees was significantly less than we estimated by using the model when fruits were 22 mm. This overestimation of final fruit set by the fruit growth rate model could be due to later climatic conditions, which induced a "June drop".

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BA at full bloom reduced fruit number by 32% relative to untreated trees.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
BA sprayed at FBe0
Outcome
fruit number tree -1e0
Direction
reducede0
Value
32%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“BA sprayed at FB reduced the fruit number tree -1 32% compared to the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1323–1410 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Promalin at full bloom did not reduce fruit number.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Promalin at FBe0
Outcome
fruit number tree -1e0
Direction
did not reducee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Promalin at FB did not reduce fruit number tree -1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1412–1462 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment 2 produced the lowest fruit count, 44% of untreated control.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Treatment 2e0
Outcome
fruit number tree -1e0
Direction
loweste0
Value
44%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treatment 2 had the lowest fruit number tree -1 (44% of the untreated control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1666–1744 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment 1 retained 52% of control fruit count.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Treatment 1e0
Outcome
fruit number tree -1e0
Direction
greatere0
Value
52%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treatment 1 had slightly greater fruit number tree -1 than treatment 1 (52% of the untreated control)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1751–1852 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–46 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Harvest fruit count was significantly below model estimates at 22 mm.

Taxon
apple treesMalus domesticat0
Outcome
final number of fruits per treese0
Direction
lesse0
Comparator
estimated by using the model when fruits were 22 mme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At harvest the final number of fruits per trees was significantly less than we estimated by using the model when fruits were 22 mm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1854–1984 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 35–46 · show in text ↑

N-benzyladenine · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ

75 papers: 57 positive, 18 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

71 papers more in this group

See all 75 papers →

application · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

141 papers: 107 positive, 34 negative or no effect

106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

137 papers more in this group

See all 141 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.