RESPONSE OF 'SWELLING' PEACH TO CHEMICAL THINNING IN COMPARISON WITH HAND THINNING | ||
| Journal of Plant Production | ||
| Article 15, Volume 27, Issue 9, September 2002, Pages 6123-6133 PDF (1.58 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/jpp.2002.256742 | ||
| Authors | ||
| M. A. Fathi,; M. M. Yehia; Fawzia M. Eissa; G. Shaddad | ||
| Hort. Res. lnst., Agric. Res. Center. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| "<lno \t"\\I\r;w'd 0f 'Sweillrg" j:"eJ'.}) [pr~.·nt.s oersic« lL.) Balch] was C0l110ar",rJ wj!i1 cherrrcat blcsaom tllinring u~:ng i];nmOlllum thiosulfate (ATS) T Topsu., urea + Topsin, and urea, or Tcpsr .... 1 Ir.dlvijwally during the 1999/2000 and 2000i200 i seasons WI\h regard to soma veqetative characters, yield, and some [rllil quality characters. In both seasons, hand thinning mduced the least significant shoot growlh Increment. percentage of fruit retenucrr, frurt firmness, and fruit acidity; whsle II gave the hlgl1est significant values of IDC'l1 area, Yield (ill terms of weighl and number c.f !rui\s per tree), and fruil weight. size, polar and .:qualonal diameter, colour flesh thickness, and total soluble solids (TSS) content Blossom thinning with ATS + Topsin Iollowed hand thinning in all the measured characters. but it was significantly inferior to hand thinning in yield. as weigh\ and number 0\ In.l\\s, ar,d fruil ISS, signlflcanlly higher than Ilemd lhmninq in shoot growlh increments and [ruil firmrress. and nut significarrUy Cllfferenl from hand thinning Ill, at least, one of the two seasons In the rernalrunq characters The other blossom thinning Ireatments were inferior to hand thinning. regarding all above-listed characters The applied thinning treatments had no significant effect on leaf chlorophyll readiflgs. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 53 PDF Download: 222 |
||
