E. Gudarowska <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> A. SzewczukT a b l e 4 . Percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> apple in different size classes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘J<strong>on</strong>agold’ in (mean2001-2004)Treatment% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> apple with diameter [cm]> 7.5 7.5 -6.5 6.5-5.5 75% 50-75% 25-50% < 25%M.26C<strong>on</strong>trol 12.9* 20.9 30.4 35.8Trunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> 24.0 20.0 28.3 27.7Trunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> +branch breaking23.3 27.2 25.0 24.5Branch breaking 18.2 27.8 30.4 23.6M.9C<strong>on</strong>trol 17.5 23.9 31.1 27.5Trunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> 21.5 24.5 26.1 27.9Trunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> +branch breaking21.1 19.6 34.2 25.1Branch breaking 24.4 32.0 22.9 20.7*Any significant differences180J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. vol. 14 (Suppl. 2), 2006: 177-182
The <str<strong>on</strong>g>effects</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>trunk</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>pruning</str<strong>on</strong>g>……T a b l e 6 . Percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> apple in different colorati<strong>on</strong> classes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘J<strong>on</strong>agold’ (mean2001-2004)Treatment% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> apple with blush <strong>on</strong> surface> 75% 50-75% 25-50% < 25%M.26C<strong>on</strong>trol 8.6 a* 30.6 ab 35.8 b 25.0 aTrunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> 23.4 b 24.9 a 28.4 ab 23.3 aTrunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> +branch breaking21.7 ab 35.2 b 22.4 a 20.7 aBranch breaking 14.5 ab 31.2 ab 27.6 a 26.7 aM.9C<strong>on</strong>trol 13. 1 ab 37.9 b 23.6 a 25.4 aTrunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> 20.6 b 29.1 ab 28.9 ab 21.4 aTrunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> +branch breaking17.0 b 29.6 ab 26.8 a 26.6 aBranch breaking 19.9 b 25.2 a 26.2 a 28.7 a*For explanati<strong>on</strong>, see Table 1In ‘J<strong>on</strong>agold’ <strong>on</strong> M.26 rootstock, branch breaking increased yield but reducedmean <strong>fruit</strong> weight (Tab. 2 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 4). Trunk <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g> improved <strong>fruit</strong> colour (Tab. 6).This agrees well with earlier reports (P<strong>on</strong>iedziałek et al., 2003; Elfving <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Lougheed, 1991. According to Gruca et al. (2002), tearing <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f shoots in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> upperpart <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a canopy improved size <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> colour in apples. In this experiment, branchbreaking in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> centre <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> canopy did not affect <strong>fruit</strong> colour.REFERENCESElfving D.C., Lougheed E.C. 1991. Daminozide, root <str<strong>on</strong>g>pruning</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>trunk</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>scoring</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>trunk</str<strong>on</strong>g> ringing <str<strong>on</strong>g>effects</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>fruit</strong> ripening <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> storage behavior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘McIntosh’ apple.J. AMER. SOC. HORT. SCI. 116 (2): 195-200.Gruca Z., Szklarz M., Kantorowicz-Bąk M. 2002. Wpływ dwóch sposobów usuwaniagałęzi w kor<strong>on</strong>ie wrzeci<strong>on</strong>owej na wzrost drzew jabł<strong>on</strong>i, pl<strong>on</strong>owanie i jakośćowoców. ZESZ. NAUK. INST.SADOW.KWIAC. 10. 83-88.Kołodziejczak P. 2000. Prowadzenie drzew jabł<strong>on</strong>i w intensywnych sadach.OGRODNICTWO 2: 10-15.Mika A. 2002. Zmiany w formowaniu i cięciu drzew owocowych. OGRODNICTWO 1:11-14.P<strong>on</strong>iedziałek W., GąstołM., Bieniasz M. 2000. Effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> heading summer sprouts <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> growth <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>fruit</strong>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> apple trees. FOLIA HORT. 12 (1): 3-10.P<strong>on</strong>iedziałek W., Porębski S., Rzeźnicka B. 2003. Wpływ nacinania pni, cięciakorzeni oraz podwójnego pnia na wzrost i pl<strong>on</strong>owanie jabł<strong>on</strong>i. FOLIA HORT.Suplement 2: 162 -164.Wer<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>im S.J., Wagenmarkers P.S., Bootsma J., Groot M.J. 2001. Orchard system forapple <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> pear. ACTA HORT. 557: 209-227.J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. vol. 14 (Suppl. 2), 2006: 177-182 181
Change language