Effect of tree architecture on fruit quality and yield attributes of nectarine (Prunus persica var. nectarina) cv. Fantasia under temperate condition

Abstract views: 212 / PDF downloads: 79


  • S LAL



Fruit quality, Nectarine, Temperate, Tree architecture, Yield


The present study was carried out at research farm of ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Srinagar during the year 2009 to 2013. The nectarine cv. Fantasia grafted on wild peach rootstock and subsequently these trees were trained in six different training systems, viz. central leader system, open center system, Y shape- tatura trellis, four scaffolds, modified central leader system and modified open leader system. These six training systems were further evaluated for plant growth, fruit quality, and yield and average data of four years have been statistically analyzed. Significant chromatic variation was recorded for fruit skin color and maximum a* value was recorded in tatura trellis (44.13), similarly maximum trunk cross section area (TCSA) (54 cm2 ), fruit yield (32.72 tonnes/ha), fruit quality in terms of fruit weight (105.28 g), fruit length (65.53 mm), fruit diameter (66.85 mm), No. of fruits/plant (310) and yield efficiency (0.379 kg/cm2) were recorded in Y-shape tatura trellis system as compared to other traditional and contemporary tree architecture. Among biochemical parameters, highest TSS (14.66 0B) and ascorbic acid (15 mg/100g fresh fruit weight), titrable acidity (0.311%), TSS/acidity (60.89) was recorded in Y shape tatura trellis system, central leader system and modified open leader system respectively. Likewise total anthocyanin (6.23 mg cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalents 100/g fw), total carotenoids (8.71 mg/100 g), total phenols (575 mg GA equivalents/100 g), total flavonols (371 mg catechin equivalents /100 g), diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl (DPPH) (66 mg of AAE/100 g of fresh weight) and Ferric reducing antioxidant potential (FRAP) (69.16 mg of AAE /100 g of fresh weight) was recorded in Y shape tatura trellis followed by four scaffold training system. The present study emphasizes the superiority of Y shape tatura trellis system over other training system and could be exploited for higher quality and quantity nectarine production in temperate regions.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • S LAL
    Scientist, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190 007
    Senior Scientist, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190 007
    Director, ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190 007


AOAC. 1994. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th esn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Arsov T, Kiprijanovski M and Gjamovski V. 2013.The effect of different training system on yield and fruit quality of Jonagold apple variety. Acta Horticulturae(ISHS) 981: 243–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2013.981.37

Buler Z and Mika A. 2004. Evaluation of the Mikado tree training system versus the spindle forms in apple trees. Journal of Fruit Ornamental Plant Research 12: 49–60.

Caruso T, Barone E and Divaio C. 2001.Factors affecting tree crop efficiency in young peach trees: rootstock vigor and training system. Acta Horticulturae 557: 193–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.557.26

Corelli L, Brighenti G, Palara U, Ravaioli F and Sansavini L. 1986. Esperienzesuforme di allevamentodelpesco per medieedaltedensità. Frutticoltura 12: 55–60.

Dejong T M, Tsujita W, Doyle J F and Grossman Y L. 1999. The comparative economic efficiency of four peach production systems in California. Hort Science 34(1): 73–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.34.1.73

Dejong T M, Day K R, Doyle J F and Johnson R S. 1994. The Kearney agricultural center perpendicular “V’ (KAC-V) orchard system for peaches and nectarine. HortTechnology 4(4): 362–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.4.4.362

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/407794/nectarine.

FAOSTAT.2014. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor.

Gjamovski V and Kiprijanovski M. 2011. Influence of nine dwarfing apple rootstocks on vigour and productivity of apple cultivar Granny Smith. Scientia Horticulturae 129: 742–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.05.032

Gomez K A and Gomez A A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.

Grossman Y L and Dejong T M. 1998. Training and pruning system effects on vegetative growth potential, light interception and cropping efficiency in peaches trees. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 123: 1 058–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.123.6.1058

Honda C, Kotoda N, Wada M, Kondo S, Kobayashi S, Soejima J, Zhang Z, Tsuda T and Moriguchi T. 2002. Anthocyanin biosynthetic genes are co-ordinately expressed during red coloration in apple skin. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 40: 955–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0981-9428(02)01454-7

Hrotkó K. 2005. Developments in high-density cherry production in Hungary. Acta Horticulturae 667: 279–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.667.41

Kiprijanovski M, Ristevski B, Arsov T andGjamovski V. 2009. Influence of planting distance to the vegetative growth and bearing of apple cultivar Jonagold on rootstock M M 106. Acta Horticulturae 825: 453–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.825.71

Koes R, Verweij W and Quattrocchio F. 2005. Flavonoids: A colorful model for the regulation and evolution of biochemical pathways. Trends Plant Science10: 236–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.03.002

Marini R P and Sowers D S. 2000. Peach tree growth, yield, and profitability as influenced by tree form and tree density. Hort Science35: 837–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.35.5.837

Marini R P, Sowers D. and Marini M C. 1995. Tree form and heading height at planting affect peach tree yield and crop value. Hort Science 30: 1 196–1 201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.30.6.1196

Mika A. 2003. Sztukacięciadrzewowocowych. HortpressWarszawa, pp 6–10.

Singh H, Kanwar J S and Hundal S S. 2004. Radiation regime and fruit quality of peach tree under different training system. Journal of Agrometeorology 6(5): 9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54386/jam.v6i1.698

Sosna I and Czaplicka M. 2008.The influence of two training systems on growth and cropping of three pear cultivars. Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research 16: 75–81.

Waldo J M. 2006. Comparative financial efficiency training system and rootstocks for ‘Alpine’ nectarine (Prunus persica var. nectarine). Ph D thesis, p 210.

Weber M S. 2001. Optimizing the tree density in apple orchards on dwarfing rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae 557: 229–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.557.29

Westwood M N, Reimer F C and Quackenbush V L. 1963. Long-term yield as related to ultimate tree size of three pears varieties grown on rootstocks of five Pyrus species. Proceeding of American Society of Horticultural Science 82: 103–8.

Wertheim S J, Wagenmakers P S, Bootsma J H and Groot M J. 2001. Orchard systems for apple and pear: conditions for success. Acta Horticulturae 557: 209–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.557.28









How to Cite

LAL, S., SHARMA, O. C., & SINGH, D. B. (2017). Effect of tree architecture on fruit quality and yield attributes of nectarine (Prunus persica var. nectarina) cv. Fantasia under temperate condition. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 87(8), 1008–1012. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v87i8.73048