Canopy management to improve fruit quality of Coe Red Fuji, Granny Smith and Spartan varieties of apple (Malus domestica)

Javid Iqbal Mir; Nazeer Ahmed; Desh Beer Singh; Om Chand Sharma; Waseem Hassan Raja; Wajida Shafi; Shafia Zaffer; Sumaira Jan; S N Kirmani

doi:10.56093/ijas.v90i8.105902

Authors

Javid Iqbal Mir Senior Scientist, Plant Biotechnology, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
Nazeer Ahmed Vice Chancellor, Shere Kashmir University of Agricultural Science and Technology, Srinagar
Desh Beer Singh Director, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
Om Chand Sharma Principal Scientist, Fruit Science, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
Waseem Hassan Raja Scientist, Fruit Science, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
Wajida Shafi Research Associate, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
Shafia Zaffer Young Professional-II, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
Sumaira Jan Young Scientist, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Rangreth, Srinagar 190 007
S N Kirmani Senior Technical Officer, ICAR-CITH

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i8.105902

Keywords:

Light interception, Yield efficiency, Photon flux, Training system

Abstract

Light management within apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) canopies has been an invariable rationale of fruit tree architecture strategy during the development of training systems. This paper attempts to compare fruit quality characteristics of three apple cultivars Coe Red Fuji, Granny Smith and Spartan trained on three canopy architectural engineering (training) system, viz. Espalier, Vertical axis and Cordon were grafted on M 9 rootstock. The maximum fruit weight (210.11g) was observed in Granny Smith and maximum yield per tree (32.11 kg/cm²) and yield efficiency (0.69 kg/cm²) in Coe Red Fuji which may be due to higher crop density. Among training systems, maximum fruit weight (200.12 g), highest yield per tree (36.36 kg) and maximum yield efficiency (0.72 kg/cm2) was observed in espalier training system. The interaction study displayed maximum fruit weight in Granny Smith (210.55g), highest yield per tree in Coe Red Fuji (32.16 kg) and maximum yield efficiency in Spartan on Espalier system. Light interception demonstrated maximum photon flux density (237 µmolm^-2 s^-1) across the canopy of Spartan with minimum leaf area index (0.30) and among training systems maximum PPFD (221 µmolm^-2s^-1) was observed in Espalier system with minimum LAI (0.21). Fruit size, TSS and colour parameters of fruits in all varieties were significantly influenced by light intensity. Higher the light intensity, higher was the TSS and colour development in coloured varieties like Spartan and Coe Red Fuji. Therefore, espalier training system was found the best canopy management system allowing maximum PAR penetration and diffusion leading better fruit quality and productivity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bakhshi D and Arakawa O. 2006. Induction of phenolic compounds biosynthesis with light irradiation in the Tesh of red and yellow apples. Journal of Applied Horticulture 8: 101–04. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37855/jah.2006.v08i02.23

Bastías R M and Corelli-Grappadelli L. 2012. Light quality management in fruit orchards: Physiological and technological aspects. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 72(4): 574–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392012000400018

Campbell R J and Marini R P. 1992. Light environment and time of harvest affect ‘Delicious' apple fruit quality characteristics. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117(4): 551–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.117.4.551

Cheng L, Fuchigami L H and Breen P J. 2000. Light absorption and partitioning in relation to nitrogen content in ‘Fuji' apple leaves. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 125(5): 581–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.125.5.581

Clayton-Greene K A. 1993. Influence of orchard management system on yield, quality and vegetative characteristics of apple trees. Journal of Horticultural Science 68(3): 365–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1993.11516364

Demotes-Mainard S, Péron T, Corot A, Bertheloot J, Le Gourrierec J, Pelleschi-Travier S, Vian A. 2016. Plant responses to red and far-red lights, applications in horticulture. Environmental and Experimental Botany 121: 4–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2015.05.010

Grappadelli L C and Lakso A N. 2004. Is maximizing orchard light interception always the best choice?. (In) VIII International Symposium on Canopy, Rootstocks and Environmental Physiology in Orchard Systems 732: 507–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.732.77

Grossman Y L and DeJong T M. 1995. Fruit tree light interception, simulated carbon assimilation, and carbon partitioning. HortScience 30(4): 881–881. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.30.4.881B

Hampson C R, Quamme H A and Brownlee R T. 2002. Canopy growth, yield, and fruit quality of' ‘Royal Gala'’apple trees grown for eight years in five tree training systems. HortScience 37(4): 627–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.37.4.627

Han L, Costes E, Boudon F, Cokelaer T, Pradal C, Da Silva D and Faivre R. 2012. Investigating the influence of geometrical traits on light interception efficiency of apple trees: A modelling study with MAppleT. (In) Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and Applications (PMA), 2012 IEEE Fourth International Symposium on IEEE, pp 152–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/PMA.2012.6524827

Lauri P É and Laurens F R. 2005. Architectural types in apple (Malus X domestica Borkh.). Crops: Growth, Quality and Biotechnology, pp 1300-13. Helsinki: World Food Limited.

Losciale P, Chow W S and Grappadelli L C. 2010. Modulating the light environment with the peach ‘asymmetric orchard’: effects on gas exchange performances, photoprotection, and photo inhibition. Journal of Experimental Botany 61(4): 1177–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp387

Milosevic T, Milosevic N and Glisic I. 2013. Tree growth, yield, fruit quality attributes and leaf nutrient content of ‘Roxana’ apricot as influenced by natural zeolite, organic and inorganic fertilisers. Scientia Horticulturae 156: 131–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.04.002

Palmer J W, Avery D J and Wertheim S J. 1992. Effect of apple tree spacing and summer pruning on leaf area distribution and light interception. Scientia Horticulturae 52(4): 303–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(92)90031-7

Palmer J W G, Bünemann S, Sansavini P, Wagenmakers S and Winter F. 1989. The international planting systems trial. Acta Horticulturae 243: 231–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1989.243.29

Peck G M, Andrews P K, Reganold J P and Fellman J K. 2006. Apple orchard productivity and fruit quality under organic, conventional, and integrated management. HortScience 41(1): 99–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.41.1.99

Robinson T. 2004a. Effects of tree density and tree shape on apple orchard performance. Acta Horticulturae 732: 405–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.732.61

Robinson T. 2004b. Recent advances and future directions in orchard planting systems. Acta Horticulturae 732: 367–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.732.57

Robinson T. 2006. The evolution towards more competitive apple orchard systems in the USA. Acta Horticulturae 491-500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.772.81

Robinson T, Hoying S, Sazo M M, DeMarree A and Dominguez L. 2013. A vision for apple orchard systems of the future. New York Fruit 21: 11–16.

Robinson T L. 1997. Interaction of tree form and rootstock on light interception, yield and efficiency of ‘Empire’, ‘Delicious’ and ‘Jonagold’ apple trees trained to different systems. Acta Horticulturae 451: 427–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1997.451.48

Sansavini S and Corelli-Grappadelli L. 1996. Yield and light efficiency for high quality fruit in apple and peach high density planting. (In) VI International Symposium on Integrated Canopy, Rootstock, Environmental Physiology in Orchard Systems 451: 559–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1997.451.65

Statistical Analysis System [SAS], 2000. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version 7. Cary (NC): Statistical Analysis System Institute, Electronic Version.

Tustin D S, Cashmore W M and Bensley R B. 1998. The influence of orchard row canopy discontinuity on irradiance and leaf area distribution apple trees. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 73(3): 289–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1998.11510976

Wagenmakers P. S and Callesen O. 1995. Light distribution in apple orchard systems in relation to production and fruit quality. Journal of Horticultural Science 70(6): 935–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1995.11515369

Willaume Magali P L and Hervé S. 2004. Light interception in apple trees influenced by canopy architecture manipulation. Trees 18: 705–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-004-0357-4

Wunsche J N and Lakso A N. 2000. The relationship between leaf area and light interception by spur and extension shoot leaves and apple orchard productivity. HortScience 35(7): 1202–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.35.7.1202

Zhang J, Qin Z and Matthew D W. 2015.Mapping interception of photosynthetically active radiation in sweet cherry orchards. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 111: 29–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.11.024