THE IMPACT OF CROP LOAD REDUCTION ON YIELD AND FRUIT

QUALITY OF APPLE (Malus domestica Borkh.)

NENAD MAGAZIN1, GORDANA BARAĆ1, MAJA MILOVIĆ1, JELENA KALAJDŽIĆ1, BISERKA MILIĆ1, ZORAN KESEROVIĆ1
1University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, Novi Sad, Serbia, *biserka@polj.uns.ac.rs

1. INTRODUCTION

Fruit species have developed regulatory mechanisms to discard excessive fruits during a certain period within the growing season. Nowadays, hormones
and nutritional factors are considered as abscission-controlling factors. The abscission of plant reproductive organs may include the abscission of flower
buds, flowers and fruits in the different stage of development. The cultural practice that most influences the size of apple fruits is thinning. Thinning can
be performed chemically or mechanically with variable influence on crop load and fruit quality depending on the method applied, physiological
condition of the trees, environmental conditions and cultural practices employed. The effect of bioregulators on fruit weight increase in apple is
primarily achieved by the reduction in crop load. The purpose of the present research was to clarify the impact of crop load reduction on fruit set, yield
and fruit quality properties of apple cultivars ‘Gala’, ‘Fuji’ and ‘Mairac’.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted on apple cultivars ‘Mairac’, ‘Fuji’ and ‘Gala’ when the trees were three years old: in 2016 - ‘Mairac’ and
‘Fuji’, and in 2017 – ‘Gala’. All cultivars were grafted on M9 rootstock, planted at 3.2 x 0.8 m distance. Fruit clusters were removed after
June drop and three different crop loads were created: High crop load –110 clusters per tree in ‘Fuji’ and ‘Mairac’ and 80 clusters per
tree in ‘Gala’; Medium crop load - 80 clusters per tree in ‘Mairac’ Low crop load –45 clusters per tree in ‘Gala’ and ‘Mairac’ and 80
clusters per tree in ‘Fuji’. The trunk circumference was measured 20 cm above graft union and trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) was
calculated. Fruit set was determined as number of fruits per tree, the number of fruits per cm2 of TCSA and per 100 clusters. The yield
efficiency (kg per cm) was calculated as the ratio of the total cumulative yield per final TCSA. Laboratory measurements and analysis
were done in order to measure fruits: weight, diameter, size classes, firmness, starch index, soluble solids content, titratable acidity.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 50

Fruits in a size class category

40
Table 1. The number of fruits per tree, cm2
TCSA and in 100 clusters, yield and yield
30
efficacy at harvested as affected by crop load of three apple cultivars
(%) 20
TCSA* No. of clusters No. of fruits per No. of fruits No. of fruits per Yield Yield efficacy 10
Crop load
(cm2) per tree tree at harvest per cm2 TCSA 100 clusters (kg tree-1) (fruits cm-2 TCSA) 0
‘Gala’
High 9.0 a 80 118.7 a 13.2 a 148.4 a 19.9 a 2.2 a
Low 8.6 a 45 73.5 b 8.6 b 163.3 a 14.6 b 1.7 b Size class category (mm)
‘Fuji’ High crop load Low crop load
High 14.3 a 110 141.6 a 9.9 a 128.7 b 24.5 a 1.9 a
50
Fruits in a size class category

Low 13.8 a 80 90.4 b 6.5 b 200.9 a 20.4 b 1.5 a

40
‘Mairac’
a a a b a a
30
High 16.1 110 183.0 11.4 166.4 27.5 1.8
20
(%)

Medium 15.8 a 80 145.8 b 9.2 b 182.3 a 23.4 b 1.4 b

a c c b c c
10
Low 16.1 45 72.8 4.5 161.8 14.3 0.9
*TCSA
0
– trunk cross-sectional area.
Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at P<0.05. 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90
Size class category (mm)
Table 2. Fruit quality properties as affected by crop load of three apple cultivars
High crop load Low crop load
TAb
Fruit weight Fruit diameter Starch index Fruit firmness SSCa 40
Crop load (g of malic
Fruits in a size class category (%)

(g) (mm) (1-10) (g/cm2) (%)

acid/100g)
30
‘Gala’
High 165.8b 77.23b 3.5a 8.5a 10.30a 0.18b 20
Low 199.2a 88.84a 3.8a 8.3a 10.88 a 0.24a
‘Fuji’ 10
High 173.2b 75.34b 9.4a 7.9a 10.26 a 0.19a
Low 225.2 a 81.02a 9.2a 7.9a 10.52 a 0.17b 0
‘Mairac’
High 150.3b 70.9b 5.5a 9.8a 13.64a 0.59 a
Medium 160.7b 72.7b 5.6a 9.7a 11.64b 0.50b Size class category (mm)
Low 195.6a 79.1a 5.9a 9.5a 13.30a 0.54ab High crop load Medium crop load
aSSC
- Soluble solids content
bTA
– Titrable acidity
Low crop load
Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at P<0.05.
Figures 1, 2 and 3. Frequency of fruits in a
4. CONCLUSION size class category (%) at the harvest as
affected by crop load of ‘Gala’, ‘Fuji’ and
All tested cultivars showed that low crop load influenced the increase in the weight and ‘Mairac’, respectively
diameter of the fruits. Fruit size distribution shifted to the higher class categories at the
lower crop load levels. Crop load treatments did not affect fruit firmness, while the value of
TSS and TA were dependent on the examined cultivar. The yield per tree was significantly
lower on low crop load trees, although the fruit weight was higher.

This research was funded by the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (Project No. 451-03-47/2023-01/
200117)
V Balkan Symposium on Fruit Growing, Zagreb, Croatia, June 18-21, 2023