The History of Fruit Thinning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Plant Growth Regulation 31: 1–16, 2000. 1 © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. The history of fruit thinning F.G. Dennis, Jr. Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824-1325, USA Key words: apple, application methods, caustic sprays, economics, flowering, growth regulators, Malus xdomestics Borkh., modeling, photosynthesis, review Abstract The history of fruit thinning is reviewed, beginning with hand removal of fruits, the effects upon subsequent flowering, and current attempts to develop mechanical methods of fruit removal. Early experiments with caustic compounds and growth regulators and their subsequent development as commercial practices are discussed, as well as the modes of action of growth regulators. Brief reviews of methods of application, factors affecting response, modeling to improve efficiency, and the economic value of thinning to the grower are also included. 1. Introduction Thinning was recommended by several early Englishhorticulturists.Cotton[42]wrote,“...tohave Fruit thinning has been practised for thousands of [pears] very large and fair, you are again to take away years, and serves a number of purposes. Too many the greater number, and leave no more than one or fruits per tree can result in small fruit size and poor two at most” (p. 70). Excessive fruiting “is exceed- quality, breakage of limbs, exhaustion of tree reserves, ingly hurtful to Espaliers, ...the Trees will neither and reduced cold hardiness. In some species/cultivars, be long preserved, nor fair and large fruit gathered heavy fruiting can also partially or completely inhibit from them, if care be not taken to take away a great flower bud initiation. Many review articles have been number so soon as they are knotted, and before they written on thinning, or on flower/fruit development, have taken much nourishment from the Tree” (p. 72). where the effects of thinning are discussed [10, 39, 58, Similarly, Lawson [96] advised, “If your trees be over- 59, 123, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 156] Given the laden ...I like better of pulling some off, (though wealth of information available on thinning of apple, I they be not ripe) ...than of propping by much, the will focus on that species, with emphasis on the North rest shall be better fed” (Book 3, p. 50). Langley American literature. [95] gave directions for thinning apricots, peaches, and pears, whereas “plumbs” are seldom thinned. He notes that little growth of stone fruits occurs from 2. Mechanical removal of fruit late May to late June, that considerable fruit drop occurs at this time, and that “all our late Authors 2.1 Hand thinning on Gardening take Notice, and therefore advise, that the thinning of Fruits be omitted, until it appears 2.1.1 Effects on size. Theophrastus [61], in discussing thatthisgreatFallisover...Hestates, “’tisevident, “Why Wild Trees Fail to Ripen their Fruit”, stated, that their Fall is caused by some Decay most prob- “...alongwithaheavyyieldgoesafailuretoconcoct able.” When this drop ceases, “...we should now it all, which is why some growers remove some thin them for good, taking away the least promising fruiting parts when there are too many of them” (Book ones, and preserving the best.” Langley advises that, I, p. 125). He also advised growers to thin flower “...sometimes a tree becomes weak by bearing too clusters of grapes (Book III, p. 120). plentifully.” He continues with detailed directions on 2 when to thin (no later than the month of May), which questioned whether the same effect on size could fruits to leave, and how far apart they should be. Hitt be obtained by removing a given proportion of the [80] also believed that “sometimes a tree becomes fruit, regardless of position on the tree. He therefore weak by bearing too plentifully,” and that “All fruits thinned major branches, leaving 1/6, 1/3, or 1/2 ought to be thinned according to their natural size” of the fruits, either by removing whole clusters or no later than the month of May; otherwise “they rob by leaving 1 or 2 fruits per cluster. Thinning fruits one another” and “never come to the size they would within clusters was most effective in increasing otherwisedo...” fruit size, indicating that fruit distribution, as well Numerous research bulletins dealing with thinning as total number of fruits, is crucial in determining of apple, peach, plum, and pear were available in the size. early decades of the 20th century (see [4] p. 429). Nevertheless, Gourley [67, 68], writing in 1922, stated 2.1.2 Effects on flowering. (See also [136].) Although that,“...manysuccessful commercial growers do not positive effects on annual bearing of apple were include it among their operations because its neces- claimed by Downing [54], most results were negative. sity has not been so apparent as that of pruning or For example, Beach [15] concluded from 4 years of spraying.” He notes, however, that “The western workthatthinning“...willnot...materiallyinfluence [U.S.] growers have been pioneers in this work from the regularity of production or the amount of fruit a commercial standpoint probably because their prac- setting for subsequent crops. The profit, if there be tice of packing fruit in small packages, notably the any, must come from the crop thinned.” Based upon 7 standard box, has made thinning not only necessary years of research with soil management and fertilizer but profitable.” He predicted that “thinning of fruit will applications, Gourley [67] observed that thinning did doubtless become still more general” once all fruit- not induce regular bearing in ‘Baldwin’ “...asreadily producing states had packing and grading laws. This as might be supposed.” The basis of his statement is prediction proved to be accurate. obscure, for he applied no thinning treatments. Several early papers provide data on the benefi- Considerable research was devoted to thinning cial effects of fruit thinning on size of apple. Walker by American horticulturists in the 1920s and 1930s. [141] commented on the considerable increase in the Auchter [2] published a report on apple thinning in value of the crop from thinning peaches, “...to say West Virginia, from which he concluded that flowering nothing of the great saving to the strength of the could not be affected by the practice. Shortly there- tree in reducing the number of pits borne,” Gourley after [3] he reported that thinning increased fruit size, [68] recommended thinning at about he time of June but did not affect annual bearing in ‘Rome Beauty’, drop because this would (1) improve fruit size more ‘York Imperial’, ‘Baldwin’, ‘Grimes Golden’, ‘Ben than would later thinning, (2) prevent the draining Davis’, ‘Northern Spy’, or ‘Delicious’. He noted of the energy of the tree by seeds and pits, and that spurs that set fruit generally did not flower the (3) avoid removal of fruits that fall of their own next year, whereas those that blossomed but did accord. Powell [113] reported that, although thinning not set fruit might or might not flower, and that ‘Burbank’ plums reduced the percentage of diseased blossom thinning would induce many spurs to form fruits, it reduced yield and had little effect on fruit flower buds. Heavy cropping reduced spur growth, size. Similar effects were obtained with ‘Poole’s and Auchter observed that more ‘Grimes Golden’ and Pride’ plum. However, thinning prevented damage to ‘Rome Beauty’ spurs, especially non-blooming ones, branches, which “were literally broken to pieces” on bloomed in the off-year if they grew more, and had nonthinned trees. greater leaf surface, in the on-year. He suggested Despite the advances made over the past 75 years, that fertilization and pruning might overcome biennial hand thinning remains an important tool for the bearing, but acknowledged that no data were available fruit grower. “Follow-up” thinning is often required to support this proposal. to break up clusters of fruit or better distribute the Crow [44] observed that blossom cluster removal cropload following chemical thinning. The earlier was effective in stimulating flowering only until the thinning, the larger the fruit, and Batjer et al. full bloom in the biennial apple cultivars ‘Wealthy’ [11] developed a system to predict the effect of and ‘Duchess of Oldenburg’; the percentage of thinning at any given time during fruit development spurs flowering following flower cluster removal the on final fruit size of apples. Knight [88], however, previous year dropped from 95% when clusters were 3 removed at full bloom to 0% when they were removed flowering occurred following commercial thinning to 5 days later. He stated that, “We suspect that no approximately 25 leaves per fruit 52 DAFB. treatment can be applied after that time [the critical Harley et al. [75] later published the results of a period] which will change the destiny of buds falling series of experiments conducted in Washington State. in categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 [i.e., terminal or bourse They adjusted leaf/fruit ratio by defruiting or defoli- buds on spurs 1–9 mm long] on either bearing or ation and demonstrated that the period during which non-bearing trees.” flowering could be influenced was shorter in a bien- Roberts [114] measured length and leaf area of nial (‘Yellow Newtown’) than in an annual bearing spurs on biennial vs. annual ‘Wealthy’ trees and noted (‘Jonathan’) cultivar. (Note, however, that ‘Jonathan’ that spurs grew more and produced more leaves in the limbs were scored, whereas ‘Yellow Newtown’ limbs “off” than in the “on” year. He classified spurs into were not.) Furthermore, Harley et al. [76], using four categories based upon terminal or bourse shoot similar techniques, showed that thinning caused large length, and observed that flowering was negligible limbs of ‘Yellow Newtown’ to flower out-of-phase in very short and very long spurs, with the optimum with the remainder of the tree.