All of the perennial organs of a woody plant may serve a storage function, but the highest concentrations of carbohydrate reserves are usually found in root tissues. These root reserves change dramatically throughout the year, decreasing rapidly with budbreak and early vegetative and reproductive development, and then increasing late in the growing season, usually after cessation of vegetative growth and fruit maturation. Accumulation of these reserves is very sensitive to late-season stresses and management practices, and decreased accumulation can profoundly affect a tree’s performance the following year. These root reserves apparently play important and specific roles in supplying substrates for shoot respiration and growth, especially in woody species that flower and begin fruit development before substantial canopy development. Although phloem transport may be involved in root-to-shoot transport, considerable xylem transport occurs in some early flowering and fruiting species. Regulation of mobilization of root reserves remains unclear, but both gibberellins and auxins are possibly involved. Unfortunately, despite their apparent importance, mobilization, transport and the specific functions of root reserve carbohydrates are only superficially defined for any woody plant. nearly fully expanded before anthesis, and much of fruit development occurs late in the season, long after canopy development. Hansen (1971) reported that apple flowers depend on reserves only during their earliest stages of development, or until the first five or six leaves have formed. Once petals emerge from the sepals, photosynthesis from the leaves becomes the major source of carbohydrates for flower and fruit growth. Most of the apple reserves are apparently used in respiration rather than for new building materials (Hansen and Grausland, 1973), and, in young apple rootstocks, < 20% of [ 14 C]-labeled reserves assimilated in fall was fixed in new growth the following season (Hansen, 1967; Kandiah, 1979b). Tromp (1983) concluded that, while apple roots do certainly supply aboveground parts with carbohydrates early in the spring, it was doubtful whether such contributions are significant, and it was likely that reserves are used mostly in respiration.

/pdf/carbohydrate-reserves-translocation-and-storage-in-woody-13u89crbrz.pdf

Carbohydrate reserves, translocation, and storage in woody plant roots.

The Relationship Between Vegetative Growth and Fruiting in Apple Trees

Module and metamer dynamics and virtual plants

In 1993, a planting of virus-free 'Royal Gala' apple (Malus ×domestica Borkh.) on 'M.9' rootstock was established at Summerland, B.C., Canada, to determine whether angled-canopy training systems could improve orchard tree performance relative to slender spindles. The trees were trained in one of five ways: slender spindle (SS), Geneva Y-trellis (GY), a modified Solen training we called 'Solen Y-trellis' (SY), or V-trellis (LDV), all at the same spacing (1.2 m × 2.8 m), giving a planting density of 2976 trees/ha. In addition, a higher density (7143 trees/ha) version of the V-trellis (HDV) was planted to gauge the performance of this system at densities approaching those of local super spindle orchards. The plots were drip-irrigated and hand-thinned. No summer pruning was done. After 8 years, differences among training systems at the same density and spacing were small and few. The two Y-shaped training systems had 11% to 14% greater cumulative yield/ha than the SS, but did not intercept significantly more light at maturity. No consistent differences occurred in fruit size or the percentage of fruit with delayed color development among the four training systems at the same density. Relative to the LDV, the HDV yielded less per tree, but far more per hectare, particularly in the first 3 years. After 8 years, the cumulative yield/ha was still 65% greater than with LDV. Yield efficiency was unaffected by tree density. Fruit size on HDV ranked lowest among the systems nearly every year, but was still commercially acceptable. The HDV intercepted more light (73%) than SS (53%). The percentage of fruit with delayed color development in HDV was not significantly different from that for LDV in most years. The trees in HDV were difficult to contain within their allotted space without summer pruning. The substantially similar performance of all the training systems (at a given density, and with minimal pruning) suggests that cost and ease of management should be the decisive factors when choosing a tree training method. scion leaf area, tree size, and vigor, and they impact yield by affecting the relative parti- tioning of photosynthate into fruit growth (Palmer, 1999b). A tree training system is a method of ma- nipulating tree planting arrangement and canopy geometry to improve the interception and distribution of PAR, for the purpose of optimizing fruit quality and yield. Many com- parisons of training systems have been re- ported in the past two decades, and some researchers have purported to find more effi- cient systems. However, the best-performing systems have usually been the ones with the greatest tree density, or the most efficient rootstock. The contribution of the training system in the absence of these confounding factors is unclear. Very few studies offer a direct comparison of training systems with identical tree density, spacing and rootstock. Clayton-Greene (1993) reported on the growth and yield of 'Granny Smith' and 'Starking Delicious' trees trained eight different ways. After 7 years, the training system had only minor effects on performance compared with density. At a given density, he found no evidence for differences in leaf area index or yield among systems, but systems did vary in fruit size and color, the incidence of certain fruit defects, and in yield efficiency. Fruit quality effects were associated with differences in light and wind exposure (Clayton-Greene, 1993; Ferree et al., 1993). Unfortunately no fruit thinning was done in this experiment. Robinson (1992) found that early fruit yields were primarily a function of density, but after 6 years, the cumulative yield (CY) was higher on the Geneva Y-trellis than on central leader trees, provided the angle of the Y-trellis was between 50° and 70°. CY after 8 years on the Y-trellis was 8% to 15% greater than with slender spindle or vertical axis training (Robinson, 1997). The Y-trellis intercepted more light and had higher partitioning effi- ciency. In a separate trial, trees trained as vertical axes or on a Y-trellis differed in nei- ther interception nor yield by year six, if the vertical axis was grown to an optimal height: alley width ratio (Robinson, 1997). In a study of density and training system at constant rectangularity, trees trained as Y-trellis, slen- der spindle, or modified vertical axis showed no differences in interception, yield, yield efficiency, trunk girth, or canopy spread for the first 5 years (Hampson et al., 1997, 1998). Thereafter the Y-trellis intercepted more light and slightly out yielded the other two systems (unpublished data). No direct comparisons involving V trellises could be located in the literature. All these authors remarked on the striking similarity in performance among very different tree shapes and training strategies when other factors were held constant and

/pdf/canopy-growth-yield-and-fruit-quality-of-royal-gala-apple-2tbfrrh9c4.pdf

Canopy Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of 'Royal Gala' Apple Trees Grown for Eight Years in Five Tree Training Systems

Crop Load Interactions in Apple

Physiological Responses of Fruit Trees to Pruning

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

A. Mika

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Physiological Responses of Fruit Trees to Pruning