Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The distribution of canopy growth among different shoot types such as epicormic, long and short shoots is not well understood in the peach tree. In this experiment, the effects of crop load and early epicormic sprout removal on current and subsequent-year distribution of vegetative growth among epicormic, long and short shoots was investigated in Prunus persica. METHODS: Field trials were conducted in Winters, California, in 2003-2004. Crop load was manipulated with fruit thinning in 2003 to produce trees that were de-fruited, commercially thinned or full crop, and half of the trees in each cropping treatment had all current year epicormic sprouts removed at the time of fruit thinning. Yield was recorded and trunk and root carbohydrates were sampled to confirm the effect of 2003 crop load differences on tissue carbohydrate concentration. All current-season vegetative-shoot extension growth was harvested from half of the trees in each treatment in the autumn of 2003 and from the other half in the autumn of 2004. Epicormic, long and short shoots were separately evaluated for dry weight, node number and leaf-stem parameters. KEY RESULTS: In 2003, long-shoot dry weight and node number were significantly affected by crop load; however, short-shoot dry weight and node number were not significantly affected. The 2003 crop-load treatments did not affect 2004 vegetative growth of any shoot type. Some re-growth of epicormic shoots followed early epicormic sprout removal: by the end of the 2003 season, trees in the early shoot-removal treatment had approximately one-third of the epicormic-shoot dry weight as unpruned trees. CONCLUSIONS: Fruit thinning promoted distribution of growth similar to that of de-fruited trees. While thinning was effective in increasing fruit size, it exacerbated the problem of epicormic sprouting. Early epicormic sprout removal did not stimulate the excessive epicormic re-growth in the same or subsequent year relative to previously studied summer pruning methods.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Crop load significantly affected long-shoot dry weight and node number in 2003.
- Taxon
- Prunus persica
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- crop loade0
- Outcome
- long-shoot dry weight and node numbere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e0“In 2003, long-shoot dry weight and node number were significantly affected by crop load”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop load did not significantly affect short-shoot dry weight or node number in 2003.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- crop loade0
- Outcome
- short-shoot dry weight and node numbere1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e0“In 2003, long-shoot dry weight and node number were significantly affected by crop load”
e1“short-shoot dry weight and node number were not significantly affected”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2003 crop-load treatments did not affect 2004 vegetative growth of any shoot type.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- 2003 crop-load treatmentse2
- Outcome
- 2004 vegetative growth of any shoot typee2
- Direction
- did not affecte2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e2“The 2003 crop-load treatments did not affect 2004 vegetative growth of any shoot type”
Claim · model-written summary
Early shoot removal left about one-third of the epicormic-shoot dry weight of unpruned trees.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- early shoot-removale3
- Outcome
- epicormic-shoot dry weighte3
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede3
- Value
- approximately one-thirde3
- Comparator
- unpruned treese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e3“trees in the early shoot-removal treatment had approximately one-third of the epicormic-shoot dry weight as unpruned trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Some epicormic shoots re-grew after early epicormic sprout removal.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- early epicormic sprout removale4
- Outcome
- re-growth of epicormic shootse4
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e4“Some re-growth of epicormic shoots followed early epicormic sprout removal”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit thinning promoted a distribution of growth similar to that of de-fruited trees.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Fruit thinninge5
- Outcome
- distribution of growthe5
- Direction
- promotede5
- Comparator
- de-fruited treese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e5“Fruit thinning promoted distribution of growth similar to that of de-fruited trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning increased fruit size.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- thinninge6
- Outcome
- fruit sizee6
- Direction
- increasinge6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e6“While thinning was effective in increasing fruit size, it exacerbated the problem of epicormic sprouting”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning exacerbated epicormic sprouting.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- thinninge6
- Outcome
- epicormic sproutinge6
- Direction
- exacerbatede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e6“While thinning was effective in increasing fruit size, it exacerbated the problem of epicormic sprouting”
Claim · model-written summary
Early epicormic sprout removal did not stimulate excessive epicormic re-growth in the same or the subsequent year relative to previously studied summer pruning methods.
- Taxon
- Prunus persicaPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- early epicormic sprout removale7
- Outcome
- excessive epicormic re-growthe7
- Direction
- did not stimulatee7
- Comparator
- previously studied summer pruning methodse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Prunus persica”
e7“Early epicormic sprout removal did not stimulate the excessive epicormic re-growth in the same or subsequent year relative to previously studied summer pruning methods”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: postharvest · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →pruning · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 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.