Productivity and economic evaluation of apple orchards on rootstock M.9 depending on crown pruning practices and terms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi2020.02.012Keywords:
apple-tree, mechanical pruning, pruning time, productivity, fruit weight, commodity quality, economic efficiencyAbstract
Canopy-pruning is of particular importance in modern fruit growing with high tree density as one of the main agro-technical factors that prevents the periodicity of fruiting and ensures efficient fruit production. Traditional pruning methods of the fruit orchard are associated with the significant cost of manual labor and do not ensure the annual high yields of quality fruits. In the situation when labor costs rise and there is a difficulty in providing skilled workers, mechanical (contour) pruning is introduced, which optimizes the size of crowns, light conditions and fruiting of the orchards.
High stable productivity is achieved with the optimum term of mechanical (contour) pruning, so it is important to study this operation in intensive apple orchards. Since mechanical pruning has not been sufficiently studied in Ukraine, the aim of this reserach is to increase the efficiency of fruit growing by optimizing the method and timing of canopy pruning of winter apple-tree cultivars on dwarf rootstock.
The article presents the research results of the effect of pruning practicess and terms on the productivity and cost-effectiveness of apple production of cvs. Gala (Mitchgla), Golden Delicious (clone B) and Jonagold (Wilmuta) in the irrigated orchard on dwarf rootstock M.9 T337. The experiments were conducted in the intensive apple full fruiting orchard. Non-virus young-trees of Dutch production were planted with drop irrigation according to the scheme 4x1 m and formed according to the type of slender spindle. Soil management system was: sod-humus – between the rows, herbicide fallow – in the around-trunk strips.
The experiment with pruning terms and practices was laid out in triplicate replication with five accounting trees per plot. The trees were pruned in the rest phase (winter), a pink bud, during flowering, in the early summer period (10 leaves per shoot), as well as within two weeks after harvest. Pruning practices were traditional manual and contour (mechanical, modelling) with manual correction of the space between the trees in a row.
To form a crown shape, the first mechanical pruning of all variants was done in winter with a fixed width of 80 cm in the lower part and 50 cm in the upper one of a tree, and further the shoots on the outside were annually shortened. The spaces between the trees were pruned manually, highlighting the thickened areas and removing drooping, old and excessively thick branches.
It has been found out that mechanical pruning with manual correction of the space between the trees helps increase the productivity of orchard with a higher crop load by 20%, and under such pruning immediately after the harvest – by 17%. On the average during the experiment, the maximum value (23.1 kg / tree) was obtained for cv. Jonagold with mechanical pruning after harvest, whereas for Gala cultivar with manual winter pruning it was almost twice less. The crop of Golden Delicious trees with mechanical pruning after harvest (with manual correction) was by 38% higher than that of Gala cultivar, but by 5% lower than that of Jonagold variety.
The yield capacity of the orchards depended significantly on the factors studied and was lower on the manual pruning areas. The areas with mechanical pruning and manual correction were by 19% more productive and the yield capacity was higher by 17% for post-harvest pruning. A maximum yield of 54.3 t / ha was obtained on mechanically pruned Golden Delicious trees in the pink bud phase and after harvest, as well as for Jonagold (57.6 t / ha) after mechanical post-harvest pruning. On the average, over the time of the experiment, the yield of more vigorous Jonagold trees was by 9% higher than that of cv. Golden Delicious and it was by 37% larger than the yield of cv. Gala (the last two with average growth).
As compared with manual winter pruning, under mechanical pruning and manual correction, the fruit weight was by 8% larger, it was 10% higher after pruning in the pink bud phase and 12% higher on post-harvest pruning. The tendency to increase the fruit weight in the areas with mechanical pruning at a later time was revealed.
Mechanical pruning (with manual correction) does not reduce the amount of quality fruits. As compared with traditional manual pruning in winter, after mechanical pruning, the yield of marketable fruit is higher by 20% and this indicator is 13% higher in the areas pruned after the harvest. The output of commercial apples of Gala cultivar is slightly smaller than that of cvs. Golden Delicious and Jonagold, and the performance of all cultivars is significantly lower after manual winter pruning. The marketable quality of Jonagold apples was 4% higher than that of Golden Delicious and 10% higher than the quality of Gala cultivar.
Manual correction after mechanical pruning requires significantly lower labor costs in the plots of all the cultivars studied. However, due to higher crop and more manual labor to harvest additional crops, the total number of man-hours differed from traditional manual pruning slightly. In general, despite some increase in production costs, mechanical pruning immediately after harvest (with manual correction) provides a better price of fruit sale, higher profitability and high economic efficiency.
Due to better marketability, the price of selling apples was higher in the areas with mechanical pruning after harvest (with manual correction of space between trees). Due to higher yields, the cost of production turned out to be lower in the plots with mechanical pruning.
Mechanical pruning (with manual correction), carried out immediately after the harvest, provides a higher price of sales and a level of profitability, high economic efficiency of fruit production. As compared with manual winter pruning, mechanical pruning of the trees after harvest (with manual correction) requires 2.5 – 3 times less labor costs, it provides 2.0 – 8.5% lower production costs and 1.5 times higher profits annually. In this case, the profitability of the production of Gala apples is higher by 28% points, Jonagold – by 35% and Golden Delicious – by 27% points, as compared with manual winter pruning.
References
Babintseva N. O. (2013). Kharakter rostu i plodonoshennia derev yabluni (Malus Domestica borkh.) u Krymu v zalezhnosti vid strokiv provedennia obrizuvannia. Horticulture, 67, 133-139. (in Ukrainian).
Andriienko, M. V., Kondratenko, P. V., Vasiuta, V. M. et al. (2006). Metodyka ekonomichnoi ta enerhetychnoi otsinky typiv plodoiahidnykh nasadzhen, pomolohichnykh sortiv i rezultativ tekhnolohichnykh doslidzhen u sadivnytstvi [Methods of assessment of economic and energy plantations types, varieties, fixed capital investment innovation and technological research results]. Ed. O. M. Shestopal. Institute of Horticulture NAAS. Kyiv, 140. (in Ukrainian).
Rastorhuiev O. B., Barabash T. M. (2014). Vplyv normuvannia navantazhennia derev yabluni (Malus Domestica borkh.) plodamy na formuvannia ta yakist urozhaiu. Horticulture, 68, 248-253. (in Ukrainian).
Dubrovskyi V. I., Velychko Y. A., Khodakivskyi O. P. (2001). Produktyvnist yabluni ta yakist yii plodiv v intensyvnykh nasadzhenniakh zalezhno vid skhemy sadinnia, sposobiv obrizuvannia derev i normuvannia vrozhaiu. Horticulture, 53, 173-181. (in Ukrainian).
Omelchenko I. K., Zhuk V. M., Parashchenko V. A. (2006). Produktyvnist nasadzhen yabluni ta metody yii rehuliuvannia. Horticulture, 59, 103-114. (in Ukrainian).
Dombrovska H. I. (2012). Urozhainist sortiv yabluni zalezhno vid form krony Scientific Herald of NUBIP Ukraine. 180. P. 62-66. (in Ukrainian).
Omelchenko I.K., Zhuk V. M. (2005). Suchasni typy intensyvnykh nasadzhen yabluni v Ukraini. Horticulture, 57, 243-252. (in Ukrainian).
Dubrovskyi V.I., Khodakivskyi O. P. Vplyv sposobu obrizuvannia na rist i plodonoshennia perspektyvnykh hibrydnykh form yabluni. Horticulture 2001. 52. P 104-109. (in Ukrainian).
Baab G. Mechanischer schnitt - neue erfahrungen. 2013. Obstbau, 11, 41-44. (in German).
Buitenhuis E. Mur fruitier, practical experiences in the Netherlands and Belgium. European fruitgrowers magazine. 2010. 2. P. 14-16. (in German).
Masseron А., Roche L. Creationetconduitduverger. Lemurfruitier. 2002. P. 108. (in German).
Binkiewicz R. Praktycznie o cięciu. Sad nowoczesny. 2010. 12. P 43-44. (in Polish).
https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2010.350
Buitenhuis E. «Le Mur Fruitier» Die französische revolution im apfelanbau. Inno frutta. 2005. 5. P. 4-7. (in German).
Vigl J. Innovativer baum schnitt: mechanisch vorschneiden und händisch korrigieren. Obstbau. 2011. Available at: www. Obstwein - technik.eu /1020/ Details? fachbeitragID=174 (in German).
Chaploutskyi A. M., Melnyk O. V. Konturne obrizuvannia: dosvid zaprovadzhennia. Horticulture news. 2013. № 4. P. 9-11. (in Ukrainian).
Chaploutskyi A. M. Produktyvnost nasadzhenyi y kachestvo urozhaia yablony v zavysymosty ot sposoba y sroka konturnoi obrezky. Bull of Donskoho HAU. 2015. № 2(16), P. 118-125. (in Russian).
Kondratenko, P. V., Bublik, M. O. (1996). Metodykaprovedennia polovykh doslidzhen z plodovymy kulturamy [Methodology for conducting field experiments with fruit crops]. Agrarna nauka. 1996. 95 pp. (in Ukrainian).
Karpenchuk, G. K., Melnik, A. V. Uchety, nabliudenyia, analyzy, obrabotka dannykh v opytakh s plodovymy y yahodnymy rastenyiamy: metodycheskye rekomendatsyy [Records, observations, analyses, data processing in the experiments with fruit and berry plants.:Methodological recommendations]. Uman. 1987. P. 12-13. (in Ukrainian).
DSTU 8133:2015 Yabluka svizhi serednikh ta piznikh terminiv dostyhannia. Tekhnichni umovy. 2015-22-06. Kyiv, 2017, 9 pp. (in Ukrainian).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Relationship between right holders and users shall be governed by the terms of the license Creative Commons Attribution – non-commercial – Distribution On Same Conditions 4.0 international (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0):https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.uk
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).