Performance of ‘Fuji’ Apple on M.9 Rootstock in Different Tree Training Systems for the First Five Years

Authors
Y. Ozkan 1
K. Yildiz 2
E. Kucuker 2
C. Cekic 2
M. Ozgen 3
Y. Akca 2
1 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Süleyman Demirel University, Doğu Campus, Isparta, Turkey.
2 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Taşlıçiftlik Campus, Tokat, Turkey.
3 Agricultural Sciences and Technologies Faculty, Niğde University, Niğde, Turkey
Abstract
The effects of five training systems on tree growth, yield, and some fruit characteristics were assessed for ‘Fuji’ apple grafted on M.9 rootstock for the first five years in Tokat, Turkey. The trees were trained in one of five ways: Slender Spindle (SS, 4762 trees ha-1), Vertical Axis (VA, 2857 trees ha-1), HyTec (HT, 1904 trees ha-1) and two different tree densities of super spindle (L-Sup S with 5,000 trees ha-1; H-Sup S with 10.000 trees ha-1). Trunk Cross-sectional Area (TCA), canopy diameter and canopy volume were higher in low tree density systems (HT and VA) than in high tree density systems (SS, L-Sup S and H-Sup S). Annual and cumulative yields per tree over the first cropping years were higher in VA and HT than in SS, L-Sup S or H-Sup S. Yield per unit area was the highest in H-Sup S in every year due to the higher number of trees per hectare. Yield efficiency (yield cm-2 TCA) was higher in VA and HT than in SS, L Sup S or H-Sup S in every year. HT produced the largest fruit among the training systems in every year. VA had the second largest fruit in 2008, 2010, and 2011.

Keywords

1. Barritt, B. H. 1992. Intensive Orchard Management. Good Fruit Grower, Yakima, Washington, 221 PP.
2. Buler, Z., Mika, A., Treder, W. and Chlebowska, D. 2001. Influence of New Training Systems of Dwarf and Semidwarf Apple Trees on Yield Its Quality and Canopy Illumination. Acta Hort., 557: 253-259.
3. Buler, Z. and Mika, A. 2009. The Influence of Canopy Architecture on Light Interception and Distribution in ‘Sampion’ Apple Trees. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 17: 45-52.
4. Corelli, L. and Sansavini, S. 1989. Light Interception and Photosynthesis Related to Planting Density and Canopy Management in Apple. Acta Hort., 243: 159-174.
5. Crassweller, R. M. and Smith, D. E. 2004. Will High Density Work for Processing Apples? Acta Hort., 639: 661-665.
6. Ferree, D.C. 1994. Early Performance of Two Apple Cultivars in Three Training Systems. HortSci.,29: 1004-1007.
7. Ferree, D. C., Funt, R. C. and Bishop, B. L. 1989. Yield and Production Efficiency of Four Apple Cultivars in Selected Orchard Management Systems. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 114: 863-869.
8. Ferree, D. C. and Rhodus, W. T. 1993. Influence of Mechanical Hedging or Root Pruning on Apple Trees in Intensive Orchards. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 118: 707-713.
9. Hampson, C. R., Quamme, H. A. and. Brownlee, R. T. 2002. Canopy Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of ‘Royal Gala’ Apple Tree Grown for Eight Years in Five Tree Training Systems. HortSci., 37: 627-631.
10. Hampson, C. R., Quamme, H. A., Kappel, F. and Brownlee, R. T. 2004. Varying Density with Constant Rectangularity. II. Effects on Apple Tree Yield, Fruit Size, and Fruit Color Development in Three Training Systems over Ten Years. HortSci., 39: 507-511.
11. Jackson, J. E. 1989. World-wide Development of High-density Planting in Research and Practice. Acta Hort., 243: 7-27.
12. Lespinasse, J. M. and Delort, J. F. 1986. Apple Tree Management in Vertical Axis: Appraisal after Ten Years of Experiments. Acta Hort., 160: 139-155.
13. Palmer, J. W., Bünemann, G., Sansavini, S., Wagenmakers, P. S. and Winter, F. 1989. The International Planting Systems Trial. Acta Hort., 243: 231-241.
14. Robinson, T. L. 2000. V-shaped Apple Planting Systems. Acta Hort., 513: 337-347
15. Robinson T. L. 2007. Effects of Tree Density and Tree Shape on Apple Orchard Performance. Acta Hort., 732: 405-414.
16. Robinson, T. L., Lakso, A. N. and Carpenter, S. G. 1991. Canopy Development, Yield and Fruit Quality of ‘Empire’ and ‘Delicious’ Apple Trees Grown in Four Orchard Production Systems for Ten Years. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 116: 179-187.
17. Stephan, J., Sinoquet, H., Donès, N., Haddad, N., Talhouk, S. and Lauri, P. E. 2008. Light Interception and Partitioning between Shoots in Apple Cultivars Influenced by Training. Tree Physiol., 28: 331–342.
18. Tustin, D. S., Hirst, P. M., Cashmore, W. M., Warrington, I. J. and Stanley, C. J. 1993. Spacing and Rootstock Studies with Central Leader Apple Canopies in a High Vigour Environment. Acta Hort., 349: 169-177.
19. Wagenmakers, P. S. and Callesen, O. 1995. Light Distribution in Apple Orchard Systems in Relation to Production and Fruit Quality. J. Hort. Sci Biotech., 70: 935-948
20. Weber, M. S. 2001. Optimizing the Tree Density in Apple Orchards on Dwarf Rootstocks. Acta Hort., 557: 229-234.
21. Wertheim, S. J. 1978. Pruning of Slender Spindle Types Trees. Acta Hort., 65: 173-180.
22. Wertheim, S. J., Wagenmakers, P. S., Bootsma, J. H. and Groot, M. J. 2001. Orchard Systems for Apple and Pear: Conditions for Success. Acta Hort., 557: 209-227.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 18, Issue 6
November and December 2016
Pages 1647-1653