Abstract
McClure, K. A. and Cline, J. A. 2015. Mechanical blossom thinning of apples and influence on yield, fruit quality and spur leaf area. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 887–896. Apple (Malus×domestica Borkh.) trees tend to crop heavily, which often makes crop load adjustment necessary. This can now be achieved as early as bloom by mechanical removal/thinning of blossoms. High-density Empire/M.26 and Royal Gala/M.26 apple trees were mechanically (MBT) and hand blossom thinned (HBT) in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and their effects on fruit set, subsequent hand thinning, final crop load, and spur leaf area were measured. In both years, MBT effectively thinned trees and reduced fruit set, but did not reduce the requirement for follow-up hand fruitlet thinning after June drop in 2011. In 2010, harvest yields for MBT treatments decreased, while weight and diameter increased. In 2011, most harvest and fruit quality parameters were unaffected by thinning. Trees that were mechanically thinned had significantly reduced spur leaf area, but were similar to unthinned control trees with respect to many of the yield and quality parameters measured. Mechanical blossom thinning is a new crop load management option for apple growers looking to supplement more traditional chemical and hand thinning techniques.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical blossom thinning reduced fruit set in both years.
- Taxon
- apples
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- MBTe0
- Outcome
- fruit sete0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- In both yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both years, MBT effectively thinned trees and reduced fruit set, but did not reduce the requirement for follow-up hand fruitlet thinning after June drop in 2011.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical thinning did not reduce subsequent hand fruitlet thinning in 2011.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- MBTe0
- Outcome
- requirement for follow-up hand fruitlet thinninge0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Qualifier
- in 2011e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both years, MBT effectively thinned trees and reduced fruit set, but did not reduce the requirement for follow-up hand fruitlet thinning after June drop in 2011.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical thinning decreased harvest yield in 2010.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- MBT treatmentse0
- Outcome
- harvest yieldse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- In 2010e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010, harvest yields for MBT treatments decreased, while weight and diameter increased.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical thinning increased fruit weight and diameter in 2010.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- MBT treatmentse0
- Outcome
- weight and diametere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- In 2010e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010, harvest yields for MBT treatments decreased, while weight and diameter increased.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Most harvest and fruit quality parameters were unaffected by thinning in 2011.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- thinninge0
- Outcome
- most harvest and fruit quality parameterse0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
- Qualifier
- In 2011e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2011, most harvest and fruit quality parameters were unaffected by thinning.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical thinning significantly reduced spur leaf area.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- mechanically thinnede0
- Outcome
- spur leaf areae0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- unthinned control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees that were mechanically thinned had significantly reduced spur leaf area, but were similar to unthinned control trees with respect to many of the yield and quality parameters measured.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanically thinned trees were similar to unthinned controls for many yield and quality measures.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- mechanically thinnede0
- Outcome
- many of the yield and quality parameterse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- unthinned control treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trees that were mechanically thinned had significantly reduced spur leaf area, but were similar to unthinned control trees with respect to many of the yield and quality parameters measured.”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors present mechanical thinning as an additional crop load management option.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- new crop load management optione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mechanical blossom thinning is a new crop load management option for apple growers looking to supplement more traditional chemical and hand thinning techniques.”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: grain · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.