Abstract
High-density pecan orchards may improve production and mitigate shading issues with the use of pruning. The period in which it is carried out may influence shoot vigor, branch drying, fructification and fruit quality. This study aimed at evaluating vegetative growth, production and fruit quality by conducting hedge and central pruning in a high-density pecan orchard for two cycles. The cultivar Pitol 1 was subject to the following treatments, which were evaluated in two cycles: no pruning, postharvest hedge pruning, dry hedge pruning, postharvest central pruning and dry central pruning. Variables under analysis were shoot growth, dry branches, production efficiency and fruit quality. Postharvest pruning decreased vigor and, consequently, shoot growth. The number of dry branches decreased after central pruning in both pruning periods whereas hedge pruning did not mitigate the problem. Production and production efficiency just increased after pruning in the second cycle. Fruit borne by trees that were subject to postharvest pruning got heavier but only the ones borne by trees subject to central pruning got larger. Central pruning resulted in lighter and yellowish kernels. Postharvest pruning is an alternative solution to get less vigorous shoot in high-density pecan orchards and its response is similar to the one of the winter pruning regarding reduction in dry branches. Postharvest central pruning is the treatment that increases fruit quality more than the others, in terms of size and weight.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Postharvest pruning reduced shoot vigor and shoot growth.
- Taxon
- pecan
_1_(24790682337).jpg?width=60)
Carya illinoinensist0 - Treatment
- Postharvest pruninge0
- Outcome
- vigor and, consequently, shoot growthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_1_(24790682337).jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Postharvest pruning decreased vigor and, consequently, shoot growth.”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Central pruning reduced the number of dry branches in both pruning periods.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- central pruninge0
- Outcome
- number of dry branchese0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- both pruning periodse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of dry branches decreased after central pruning in both pruning periods”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Hedge pruning did not mitigate dry branches.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- hedge pruninge0
- Outcome
- dry branchese1
- Direction
- did not mitigatee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“hedge pruning did not mitigate the problem”
e1“The number of dry branches decreased after central pruning in both pruning periods”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning increased production in the second cycle.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- Productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- second cyclee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Production and production efficiency just increased after pruning in the second cycle.”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning increased production efficiency in the second cycle.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- production efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- second cyclee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Production and production efficiency just increased after pruning in the second cycle.”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Postharvest pruning produced heavier fruit.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- postharvest pruninge0
- Outcome
- Fruite0
- Direction
- heaviere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit borne by trees that were subject to postharvest pruning got heavier”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Central pruning produced larger fruit.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- central pruninge0
- Outcome
- Fruite1
- Direction
- largere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the ones borne by trees subject to central pruning got larger”
e1“Fruit borne by trees that were subject to postharvest pruning got heavier”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Central pruning produced lighter kernels.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- Central pruninge0
- Outcome
- kernelse0
- Direction
- lightere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Central pruning resulted in lighter and yellowish kernels.”
t0“pecan”
Claim · model-written summary
Central pruning produced yellowish kernels.
- Taxon
- pecanCarya illinoinensist0
- Treatment
- Central pruninge0
- Outcome
- yellowish kernelse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Central pruning resulted in lighter and yellowish kernels.”
t0“pecan”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Carya illinoinensis (pecan)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →pruning · yield · Carya illinoinensis (pecan)Results differ
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 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.