Mechanical flower thinning in peach trees

In cultivation of peaches, thinning is conventionally performed on fruits by hand, and needs to be done in a short time and with specialized labor, which increases the operational costs of this practice. Mechanical thinning can be an alternative to manual fruit thinning. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical flower thinning with different equipment in advanced peach orchard. The experiment was conducted in 2016 and 2017, combining advanced selections of peach trees and thinning methods. The evaluated variables were percentage of flowers thinning, thinning time, fruit number per plant, plant production, estimated yield, average fruit mass and fruit diameter class. Flower mechanic thinning alters the yield index of peach trees. Mechanical thinning on peach trees was efficient in flower thinning and reduced the practice execution time. Therefore, mechanical thinning is an alternative to the manual fruit thinning of peach trees.

Index terms
Prunus persica; flower removal; effective fruiting; thinning cost

Authorship

Caroline Farias Barreto

PhD student in Agronomy, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, UFPel, Pelotas-RS, Brasil. E-mail: carol_fariasb@hotmail.com; navroski@outlook.com; jorgeatiliobenati@hotmail.com Universidade Federal de PelotasBrasilPelotas, RS, Brasil PhD student in Agronomy, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, UFPel, Pelotas-RS, Brasil. E-mail: carol_fariasb@hotmail.com; navroski@outlook.com; jorgeatiliobenati@hotmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5568-5305

Luis Eduardo Correa Antunes

Researcher, Embrapa Clima Temperado, EMBRAPA, Pelotas-RS, Brasil. E-mails: luis.antunes@embrapa.br;jose.fm.pereira@embrapa.br Embrapa Clima TemperadoBrasilPelotas, RS, Brasil Researcher, Embrapa Clima Temperado, EMBRAPA, Pelotas-RS, Brasil. E-mails: luis.antunes@embrapa.br;jose.fm.pereira@embrapa.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0341-1476

Letícia Vanni Ferreira

PhD in Agronomy, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Sul, Ibirubá-RS, Brasil. E-mail: letivf@hotmail.com Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do SulBrasilIbirubá, RS, Brasil PhD in Agronomy, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Rio Grande do Sul, Ibirubá-RS, Brasil. E-mail: letivf@hotmail.com

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1888-7514

Renan Navroski

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7854-6172

Jorge Atílio Benati

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5970-9175

José Francisco Martins Pereira

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6172-0747

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | Tables

Figures (3)
Tables (3)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Average temperature and precipitation of 2016 and 2017 in the municipality of Pelotas of the Embrapa Temperate Climate experimental station, RS, Brazil.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Fruits Class by diameter <55mm, 55mm to <60mm, 60mm to <65mm and > 65mm of peach genotypes in the city of Pelotas in 2016 (A) and 2017 (B), Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Brazil.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Fruits Class by diameter <55mm, 55mm to <60mm, 60mm to <65mm and > 65mm of peach genotypes submitted to mechanical flower thinning with different equipment and manual fruit thinning in the city of Pelotas in 2016 (A) and 2017 (B), Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Interaction among thinning methods and peach genotypes on a % of thinning, average yield per plant and estimated yield per hectare in 2016, in the municipality of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Percentage of flower thinning, average yield per plant and estimated yield per hectare in 2017, in the municipality of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Number of fruits and average fruit mass of three peach genotypes submitted to different thinning methods in 2016 and 2017, in the city of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Figure 1 Average temperature and precipitation of 2016 and 2017 in the municipality of Pelotas of the Embrapa Temperate Climate experimental station, RS, Brazil.

Figure 2 Fruits Class by diameter <55mm, 55mm to <60mm, 60mm to <65mm and > 65mm of peach genotypes in the city of Pelotas in 2016 (A) and 2017 (B), Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Brazil.

Figure 3 Fruits Class by diameter <55mm, 55mm to <60mm, 60mm to <65mm and > 65mm of peach genotypes submitted to mechanical flower thinning with different equipment and manual fruit thinning in the city of Pelotas in 2016 (A) and 2017 (B), Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

Table 1 Interaction among thinning methods and peach genotypes on a % of thinning, average yield per plant and estimated yield per hectare in 2016, in the municipality of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

	2016
	Manual fruit thinning Carpa Electro^® Trimmer
	Thinning (%)
Cascata 1513	38.13	aB	59.45	aA	57.50	aA
Cascata 1429	32.72	aB	57.23	aA	61.73	aA
Cascata 1067	34.12	aA	48.11	aA	33.84	bA
CV (%)	15.61
	Production per plant (Kg)
Cascata 1513	13.01	aB	16.31	aAB	18.20	aA
Cascata 1429	10.55	aA	7.34	cB	9.64	bA
Cascata 1067	11.38	aB	12.65	bAB	14.98	aA
CV (%)	13.42
	Estimated Production(t ha^-1)
Cascata 1513	17.35	aB	21.74	aAB	24.26	aA
Cascata 1429	14.06	aA	9.78	cB	12.86	bA
Cascata 1067	15.17	aB	16.87	bAB	19.97	aA
CV (%)	13.42

^{C.V. (%)}
Coefficient of variation.
^*
Averages followed by distinct lowercase letters in the same column and averages followed by distinct uppercase letters in the same row differ by Tukey test at 5% probability of error.

Table 2 Percentage of flower thinning, average yield per plant and estimated yield per hectare in 2017, in the municipality of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

	2016
	Manual fruit thinning Carpa Electro^® Trimmer
	Thinning (%)
Cascata 1513	38.13	aB	59.45	aA	57.50	aA
Cascata 1429	32.72	aB	57.23	aA	61.73	aA
Cascata 1067	34.12	aA	48.11	aA	33.84	bA
CV (%)	15.61
	Production per plant (Kg)
Cascata 1513	13.01	aB	16.31	aAB	18.20	aA
Cascata 1429	10.55	aA	7.34	cB	9.64	bA
Cascata 1067	11.38	aB	12.65	bAB	14.98	aA
CV (%)	13.42
	Estimated Production(t ha^-1)
Cascata 1513	17.35	aB	21.74	aAB	24.26	aA
Cascata 1429	14.06	aA	9.78	cB	12.86	bA
Cascata 1067	15.17	aB	16.87	bAB	19.97	aA
CV (%)	13.42

^C.V.(%)
Coefficient of variation.
^*
Averages followed by distinct lowercase letters in the column differ from each other by the Tukey test at 5% probability of error.
^ns
ns (not significant) at 5% probability of error.

Table 3 Number of fruits and average fruit mass of three peach genotypes submitted to different thinning methods in 2016 and 2017, in the city of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

		Number of fruits per plant					Average fruit mass (g)
Genotype	2016				2017			2016			2017
Cascata 1513		218.42	a	195.08		a	79.19		c	69.57		c
Cascata 1429		76.15	c	55.08		c	129.79		a	130.54		a
Cascata 1067		150.23	b	118.08		b	94.53		b	95.23		b
Thinning method
Manual fruit thinning		124.16	ns	104.80		ns	104.14		ns	112.84		ns
Carpa Electro^®		158.30		128.09			95.32			85.52
Trimmer		162.34		136.06			95.62			96.97
CV (%)		29.33		22.48			16.76			19.34

^{C.V. (%)}
Coefficient of variation.
^*
Averages followed by distinct lowercase letters in the column differ from each other by the Tukey test at 5% probability of error
^*ns
(not significant) at 5% probability of error.

How to cite

copy

Sociedade Brasileira de Fruticultura Via de acesso Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane, s/n , 14884-900 Jaboticabal SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 16 3209-7188/3209-7609 - Jaboticabal - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rbf@fcav.unesp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Mechanical flower thinning in peach trees

PlumX

Mensagem

[TFN0101] ^{C.V. (%)}
Coefficient of variation.

[TFN0102] ^*
Averages followed by distinct lowercase letters in the same column and averages followed by distinct uppercase letters in the same row differ by Tukey test at 5% probability of error.