Optimizing Fruit Spacing in Florida Peach Production

被引:0
|
作者
Olmstead, Mercy [1 ]
England, Gary [2 ]
Atwoo, Ryan [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Hort Sci, IFAS, 2135 Fifield Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Univ Florida, IFAS, Sumter Cty Extens, Bushell, FL 33513 USA
[3] Univ Florida, IFAS, Lake Cty Extens, Tavares, FL 32778 USA
关键词
Prunus persica L; fruit size; stone fruit;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
S6 [园艺];
学科分类号
0902 ;
摘要
Peach (Prunus persica L.) production in the state of Florida has garnered much attention as a profitable alternative crop for growers seeking farm diversification. To produce the quality of fruit required to meet market and consumer demands, several intensive production practices must be completed at the proper time. Marketable fruit size ranges from 2.25-inch (5.7 cm) diameter to >2.5-inch (6.4 cm) diameter, with growers receiving premium prices as they are able to produce larger fruit. Four fruit-thinning treatments (unthinned, 10.2-cm (4 inch) spacing, 15.2-cm (6 inch) spacing, and 22.9-cm spacing (9 inch) were applied to three different varieties ('Flordaprince', 'Tropicbeauty', and 'UFBeauty') located at Water Conserv II (Winter Garden, FL), and one variety ('Flordaprince') in Citra, FL during the 2010 growing season. In 2011, 'UFBeauty' was replaced by 'UFSun' at Water Conserv II and a 30.5-cm (12 inch) spacing was added. Harvest of all cultivars occurred at commercial maturity and was divided into three categories: large fruit [6.4-cm (2.5 inch) diameter and greater], marketable fruit [5.7-cm (2.5 to 2.25 inch) diameter] and small, non-marketable fruit [less than 5.7-cm (2.25 inch) diameter]. In both locations, fruit spaced at the wider spacings were larger. The greatest amount of non-marketable fruit was produced when trees were not thinned. Thus, these results indicate the fruit should be thinned with 6 to 9 inches between fruit for maximum size and profitability.
引用
收藏
页码:41 / 44
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effect of transplant source on strawberry fruit production in Florida
    Albregts, EE
    Chandler, CK
    SOIL AND CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS, 1995, 54 : 80 - 83
  • [22] Nectar production, honeybee visitation and fruit set of peach flowers
    Nyéki, J
    Szabó, Z
    Benedek, P
    Szalay, L
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL PEACH SYMPOSIUM, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2002, (592): : 537 - 541
  • [23] Optimizing Nitrogen Rates with Surfactant for Chipping Potato Production in Florida
    Liu, Guodong
    Doron, Moshe
    Sargent, Steven A.
    Dinkins, David
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, VOL 128, 2015, 2015, 128 : 136 - 137
  • [24] Optimizing Gypsum Rate for Commercial Potato Production in Northeast Florida
    Liu, GuoDong
    Sargent, Steven
    Hogue, Benjamin
    Dinkins, David
    Lands, Steven
    Johns, Danny
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, VOL 127, 2014, 2014, 127 : 92 - 93
  • [25] Effect of training system and in row spacing on yield and fruit quality of peach in the sub-tropical regions
    Sharma, Yamini
    Singh, Harminder
    Thakur, Anirudh
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE, 2017, 74 (03) : 440 - 443
  • [26] Optimizing blasthole spacing
    Konya, CJ
    E&MJ-ENGINEERING AND MINING JOURNAL, 1997, 198 (03): : 69 - 70
  • [27] Effect of thinning time and fruit spacing on fruit maturity, yield, size, peel colour and quality attributes of peach cv. Flordasun
    Deshmukh, N. A.
    Rymbai, H.
    Jha, A. K.
    Lyngdoh, P.
    Malhotra, S. K.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE, 2017, 74 (01) : 45 - 50
  • [28] PEACH-TREE TRAINING AND SPACING
    REEDER, BD
    BOWEN, HH
    ALDRED, WH
    HORTSCIENCE, 1980, 15 (05) : 580 - 581
  • [29] OPTIMIZING ORANGE GROVE FACTORS FOR FRUIT PRODUCTION AND HARVESTING
    WHITNEY, JD
    WHEATON, TA
    CASTLE, WS
    TUCKER, DPH
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE, 1994, 37 (02): : 365 - 371
  • [30] Optimizing orange grove factors for fruit production and harvesting
    Whitney, J.D.
    Wheaton, T.A.
    Castle, W.S.
    Tucker, D.P.H.
    Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1994, 37 (02): : 365 - 371