Cited by 6Plant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementAgroforestry and silvopastoral systems

Vegetation-free width and irrigation impact peach tree growth, fruit yield, fruit size, and incidence of hemipteran insect damage

Open access
Fisk, Connie L., Parker, Michael L., Mitchem, Wayne·2015·HortScience

Abstract

Orchard floor vegetation competes with peach trees for water and nutrients and may harbor pathogens and insects. Tree growth, fruit yield, and fruit size can be optimized through management of vegetation in the tree row and irrigation. Under-tree vegetation-free strip widths (0, 0.6, 1.2, 2.4, 3.0, and 3.6 m) and irrigation were studied in years four through eight of a young peach orchard to determine their effects on peach tree growth and fruit yield, harvest maturity, and fruit size. Immature fruit samples were collected during thinning in years four through six to determine the effect of the treatments on the incidence of hemipteran (catfacing) insect damage. Trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), as a measure of tree growth, increased with increasing vegetation-free strip width; trees grown in the 3.6-m vegetation-free strip had TCSAs 2.2 times greater, on average, than trees grown in the 0-m vegetation-free strip. TCSA also increased with irrigation; trees grown with irrigation had TCSAs 1.2 times greater, on average, than trees grown without irrigation. Yield increased with increasing vegetation-free strip width, from 9.6 kg per tree in the 0-m plot to 26.5 kg per tree in the 3.6-m plot in year four, to 24.3 kg per tree in the 0-m plot and 39.6 kg per tree in the 3.6-m plot in year eight, for a total yield over years 4–8 per tree of 100 kg in the 0-m plot compared with 210 kg per tree in the 3.6-m plot. Yield, average fruit weight, and average fruit diameter increased with irrigation in three of 5 years; the other 2 years had higher than average rainfall reducing the need for supplemental irrigation. In 3 out of 5 years fruit in irrigated plots matured earlier than fruit in nonirrigated plots. In all years, fruit grown in the 0-m strip matured earliest and had the smallest diameter. Establishing a vegetation-free strip of as narrow as 0.6 m reduced the incidence of catfacing damage compared with the 0-m treatment, even though the orchard was on a commercial pesticide spray schedule. The least damage was seen with the industry standard vegetation-free strip widths greater than 3.0 m with or without irrigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21273/hortsci.50.5.699

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A study on peach orchards in North Carolina found a negative correlation between the proportion of soil covered by vegetation and peach tree productivity, with higher production at less vegetation cover.

    “Another study on vegetation cover management in peach orchards in North Carolina (USA) demonstrated that there was a negative correlation between the proportion of soil that was covered by vegetation and peach tree productivity, with higher production at less vegetation cover”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Flore, J.A. 1999. Reduced chemical input produc- tion of peach. SARE in Michigan, Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E 2692:2-3.
  2. Lockwood, D.W. and D.C. Coston. 2005. Peach tree physiology, p. 5-10. In: D. Horton and D. Johnson (eds.). Southeastern peach growers' handbook. Georgia Experiment Station Hand- book No. 1. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
  3. Lockwood, D.W. and S.C. Myers. 2005. Tree density, orchard design, and training systems, p. 51-64. In: D. Horton and D. Johnson (eds.). Southeastern peach growers' handbook. Georgia Experiment Station Handbook No. 1. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
  4. Meyer, J.R. 1984. Catfacing in peaches: Effects of ground cover and surrounding vegetation. Proc. Joint Natl. Peach Counc. Southeast Peach Conven. 5-11.
  5. Mitchem, W.E. 2005. Weed management consid- erations for peach orchards, p. 279-284. In: D. Horton and D. Johnson (eds.). Southeastern peach growers' handbook. Georgia Experiment Station Handbook No. 1. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
  6. Welker, W.V. and D.M. Glenn. 1988. Growth suppression of peach trees with competition. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:243.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fisk, C. L., Parker, M. L., & Mitchem, W.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Parker, Michael L.
Venue
HortScience
Published
2015-05
Volume
50
Issue
5
Pages
699-704
ISSN
  • 0018-5345 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-9834
OpenAlex
W2412664906
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
HortScience (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Irrigation Practices and Water Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems
Keywords
peach, irrigation, tree growth, trunk cross-sectional area, fruit yield, fruit size, harvest maturity, weed competition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review