Spacing and genotype affect fruit sugar concentration, yield, and fruit size of muskmelon

被引:34
|
作者
Kultur, F [1 ]
Harrison, HC [1 ]
Staub, JE [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Hort, Madison, WI 53706 USA
关键词
Cucumis melo; plant density; sucrose; birdsnest; vining;
D O I
10.21273/HORTSCI.36.2.274
中图分类号
S6 [园艺];
学科分类号
0902 ;
摘要
Muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) genotypes, Birdsnest 1 ['Qalya' (BN1)], Birdsnest 2 (BN2), and 'Mission' (V) were used to determine the effects of differing plant architecture and spacing on fruit sugar concentration and yield. The BN1 and BN2 genotypes possessed a highly branched growth habit specific to birdsnest melon types. but not characteristic of standard indeterminate vining types (e.g., 'Mission'). Experiments were conducted at both the Hancock and Arlington Experimental Farms in Wisconsin, where plant response to two within-row spacings [35 cm (72,600 plants/ha) and 70 cm (36,300 plants/ha)] in rows on 210-cm centers was examined, Genotypes were grown in a randomized complete-block design with four replications at each location and evaluated for primary lateral branch number, fruit number per plant and per hectare, average fruit weight, yield per plant (g), yield per hectare (t), and fruit sugar concentration. Yield, fruit number, and sugar concentration were higher for all genotypes at Arlington than at Hancock. The main effect of genotype was significant for all traits examined. Genotypes BN1 and V bad higher mean fruit weight, yield per plant and per hectare, and fruit quality (fruit sugar concentration) than did BN2. Spacing affected all traits, except primary branch number and fruit sugar concentration. Fruit number and yield per plant and average fruit weight were higher with wider spacing, but yield (t.ha(-1)) and fruit number per hectare were lower.
引用
收藏
页码:274 / 278
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Shading Levels Affect Bell Pepper Fruit Yield
    Diaz-Perez, Juan Carlos
    Boyhan, George
    Srinivasan, Rajagopalbab
    HORTSCIENCE, 2011, 46 (09) : S67 - S67
  • [42] Plant water status and genotype affect fruit respiration in grapevines
    Hernandez-Montes, Esther
    Escalona, Jose Mariano
    Tomas, Magdalena
    Medrano, Hipolito
    PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM, 2020, 169 (04) : 544 - 554
  • [43] Rootstock resistance to fusarium wilt and effect on fruit yield and quality of two muskmelon cultivars
    Nisini, PT
    Colla, G
    Granati, E
    Temperini, E
    Crinò, P
    Saccardo, F
    SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE, 2002, 93 (3-4) : 281 - 288
  • [44] Histological and molecular investigation of the basis for variation in tomato fruit size in response to fruit load and genotype
    Fanwoua, Julienne
    de Visser, Pieter H. B.
    Heuvelink, Ep
    Angenent, Gerco
    Yin, Xinyou
    Marcelis, Leo F. M.
    Struik, Paul C.
    FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY, 2012, 39 (09) : 754 - 763
  • [45] PACLOBUTRAZOL - A PLANT-GROWTH RETARDANT FOR INCREASING YIELD AND FRUIT-QUALITY IN MUSKMELON
    NERSON, H
    COHEN, R
    EDELSTEIN, M
    BURGER, Y
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE, 1989, 114 (05) : 762 - 766
  • [46] Effects of Grafting with Different Rootstocks on Fruit Yield and Quality of Muskmelon Under Continuous Cropping
    Ye, Hongxia
    Zhang, Caiyu
    Wang, Bingliang
    HORTICULTURAE, 2025, 11 (02)
  • [47] Benzyladenine effects on fruit size, fruit thinning and return yield of 'Spadona' and 'Coscia' pear
    Stern, RA
    Flaishman, MA
    SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE, 2003, 98 (04) : 499 - 504
  • [48] EFFECT OF INCREASING PLANT-DENSITY AND SALINITY ON YIELD AND FRUIT-QUALITY IN MUSKMELON
    MENDLINGER, S
    SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE, 1994, 57 (1-2) : 41 - 49
  • [49] Calcium fertigation ineffective at increasing fruit yield and quality of muskmelon and honeydew melons in California
    Johnstone, P. R.
    Hartz, T. K.
    May, D. M.
    HORTTECHNOLOGY, 2008, 18 (04) : 685 - 689
  • [50] EFFECTS OF APPLE ROOTSTOCK, TREE SPACING, AND CULTIVAR ON FRUIT AND TREE SIZE, YIELD, AND FOLIAR MINERAL-COMPOSITION
    SCHNEIDER, GW
    CHAPLIN, CE
    MARTIN, DC
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE, 1978, 103 (02) : 230 - 232