IMPACT OF AVOCADO (Persea Americana Mill.

) TREE CANOPY
MANAGEMENT ON CANOPY LIGHT INTERCEPTION AND
DISTRIBUTION, FRUIT YIELD AND QUALITY OF AVOCADO
VARIETIES

M.sc Thesis
By: Tesema Yohanis

Advisor: Meseret Tesema (PhD)

Co-Advisor: Alemu Dessa (PhD)

November 2023
Hawassa, Ethiopia
 PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Introduction
 Objectives of the study

2. Materials and Methods

 Plant material
 Experimental design and treatments
 Data collection and experimental procedure
 Data analysis

3. Results
4. Summary and Conclusion
 1. INTRODUCTION

 The avocado (Persea americana Mill.) is an evergreen subtropical fruit tree native to

Central America and Mexico (Chen et al., 2009).

 Introduced to Ethiopia in 1938 (Zekarias, 2010)

 Importance's of avocado tree fruit was:

 It is important food as it can be eaten fresh or in processed forms (FAO, 2009).

 Used in the cosmetic industries as a raw material (Duarte et al., 2017).

 Also economically important fruit crops in Ethiopia (Abebe et al., 2006)
 Intro……….

 World production of avocados was 7.2 million tones, led by Mexico with 32%
of the total (FAOSTAT, 2020).
 Average avocado productivity in Ethiopia is 4.52 tha−1 (CSA, 2018)
 Which is very low as compared to the world average production (7 tha−1)
 In Ethiopia avocado production is constrained by:-
 Dependence on local cultivars which are poor yielding and quality
 Poor knowledge and skill in agronomic practices such as canopy management of fruits, disease
and insect pest etc.

(Jalata, 2021: Derbew and Soon, 2015).

 Intro……

 Canopy management is the manipulation of tree canopies to optimize the production of

quality fruits.
 Components like; pruning, canopy opening, training and using plant growth inhibitors
(Srilatha et al., 2015)
 Important role in this practice are;
 Optimization of sunlight interception and photosynthetic capacity
 Regulate vegetative growth and flowering
 Improving yield and quality, specifically in highly shaded trees

(Smart et al., 2017).

 Intro….
 Various studies showed that, light interception by leaves and penetration to center of
canopy was significantly increased after tree-shape pruning (Wang et al., 2019; Zhu
et al., 2020)
 Interception of light by a canopy, difference between the solar incident radiation and
reflected radiation by the soil surface (Villalobos et al., 2002)

 Light regulates photosynthesis, growth, morphogenesis, substance metabolism, and

gene expression in plants (Lin et al., 2017).
 Therefore, light interception is considered a major performance metric for defining
ideotypes (Gao et al., 2018)
 Intro…..

 This process directly impacts biomass production and partitioning.

 In addition, light is involved in the flower-initiation process
 And in a number of important fruit-quality parameters are significantly affected by the
light interception processes. (Arthey, 1975)

 Frequently a strong relationship exists between changes in light quality and quantity
within canopies.
 Plants absorb blue and red through chlorophyll to fuel photosynthesis while reflecting
FR.
 Intro..…
 Sunlight has a R:FR of approximately 1.2, but neighboring plants can reduce this ratio to
as low as 0.1 in deep canopy shade
 R:FR can drop already before true shading occurs, due to reflection of FR light by
neighboring plants that are not yet overlapping (Ballaré et al., 1990)

 The overall quantity of light, the photo synthetically active radiation, also decreases
inside vegetation during the growth season (Millenaar et al., 2009)
 Therefore, the optimization of tree architecture has always been considered the ideal
choice for fruit tree culture.
 Intro..…

 Avocado fruit trees varies in size and shape based on their varieties(Kathula, 2021)
 The response of cultivar to canopy management may be due to the size of leaves and
number of leaves per shoot
 Few recently introduced avocado varieties to Ethiopia include Hass, Fuerte and
Nabal
 These three varities are the most commonly grown in Ethiopia and especially in the
present study area in Tefer kella district in Sidama Region.
 Intro…..

 However, their productivity remained very low in Ethiopia compared to the world
average.
 Even though, the development of canopy management and improved varieties in avocado
orchards, it is less practiced by farmers in Ethiopia
 Moreover, there is less research on fruit tree crop management and negligible effort in
extension work to promote and train these practices.
 Therefore, this study was initiated to study the impact of avocado canopy management
on the canopy light interception and distribution on fruit yield and quality of avocado tree
varieties.
 Objectives

General objective was:

 To investigate the effect of avocado canopy management on the canopy light

interception and distribution, fruit yield and quality of avocado fruit varieties
 Specific objectives were

 To evaluate the effect of canopy management on canopy light interception and

distribution of different avocado tree varieties
 To evaluate the effect of canopy management on fruit yield and quality of different
avocado tree varieties
 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Table 1. Description of the Study Area

Study area Dara otilcho(Tefer kela)

Longitude 380 30' E

Latitude 060 30' N

Altitude 2100 - 2400 m.a.s.l

Climate Mid-altitude with Bi-modal Rainfall Pattern

Precipitation 1600 - 1800 mm

Rainy Season June to September

Temperature 18.5- 32
Figure 1: Map of Sidama region and study district.
 Plant material

 Three widely used avocado fruit tree varieties and one local, namely Hass, Nabal, Fuerte,
and Local were used as experimental material.
Table 2. Avocado varieties used for experiment

Maturity time Growing altitude

Name Growth character (month) (m.a.s.l)
Hass Dense evergreens and leathery leaves 4–6 1200 – 2200
Fruete large and spreading 5–7 1200 - 2200
Nabal Large spreading and dense evergreen 6–8 1100 - 2200
Local Medium spreading 4-6 1700-2100
 Experimental design and treatments

 The field experiment was set out as a randomized complete block design

arranged as a factorial combination of canopy management x varieties

with three replications

 The main factors comprised

 canopy management (no- canopy open and canopy open) and
 three released avocado tree varieties and local avocado tree (Hass, Fuerte, Nabal and
Local)
 Table 3: Treatment combination

Canopy management Avocado Varieties Combinations

Hass NCO × H
No canopy open Fuerte NCO × F
Nabal NCO × N
Local NCO × L
Hass CO × H
Canopy open Fuerte CO × F
Nabal CO × N
Local CO × L

Where; CO= Canopy opening, NCO= No canopy opening, L= Local,

F= Fuerte, N= Nabal and H= Hass
 Experimental procedure

 The three farmers’ orchards adjacent to each other were selected.

 Each farmer’s orchard containing eight avocado trees of each of the four avocado
varieties were selected for the study.

 The selection of the farmers’ orchard were based on the criteria such as:
 consists all the varieties,
 tree average age (10 – 15) and
 adjacent to each other in the same area.
 Experimental proced…..

 The avocado fruit trees for the treatments were selected depending on the criteria such
as :
 average similar plant height,
 similar branch number and canopy diameter,
 canopy depth (from the tip of the canopy to below canopy),
 stage of growth (dormant tree stage) and
 similar light intensity level under canopy
 The trees were maintained under uniform cultural practices during the investigation
period.
 Experimental Proced……….

 Well decomposed compost measuring 20kg they were applied per tree and
 Also they did not used any tree canopy management methods before experiment

 The canopy management was conducted in last week of November 2022 during the
dormant stage of avocado fruits production and

 data collection was started after one month of canopy opening.

 Data collection

 Days to Flowering
 Days to Fruit setting Phonological parameters
 Days to Fruit maturity

 Photo synthetically active radiation (PAR)

 Red
 Far red Light parameters
 Red to far red ratio
 Radiation use efficiency
 Data collect…….

Number of buds per branch

Number of flower per branch
Percentage of initial fruit set
Percentage of final fruit set Yield and yield component
Total number of fruits per tree parameters
Branch yield
Yield per hectare
 Data collect…….

Fruit dry matter

Firmness
Total soluble solid Fruit quality parameters
Titratable acidity
pH
 Data analysis

 The data collected were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using GLM
procedure within SAS version 9.0

 For parameters whose ANOVA tested significant with respect to treatment effects,
further means separation was done using least significant difference method (LSD) at
0.05 probability level
 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1
Red : Far red ratio
0.9
Red:Far red ratio (µmol m-2s-1)
a

0.8 b
LSD(0.05) = 0.00093, CV(%) = 0.84
0.7 c d
e
0.6 f
g
0.5
h
0.4 No canopy open
0.3
canopy open
0.2
0.1
0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
variety
Figure 2: Interaction effect on Red to far red ratio
 Table 4: Main effects on light parameters under field condition
Treatments PAR Red Far red
(mol s ) (mol s ) (mol s )
Canopy management
Canopy open 53.09 a 9.2708a 17.770 a
No canopy open 42.8b 4.5339b 12.593 b
LSD 1.09 0.9232 1.5095
Variety
Hass 50.854a 8.48a 16.73a
Fruete 48.032b 6.73b 15.09ab
Nabal 46.415bc 6.39b 14.48b
Local 46.492c 6.003b 14.42b

Interaction NS NS NS
CV 2.16 10.43 8.22
LSD 1.54 1.305 2.13

Means sharing the same letter are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
 LSD (0.05) = 0.0129, CV (%) = 1.04
0.9
Light use efficiency (µmol m-2s-1)

a
0.8 b
c c
0.7 d e e
f
0.6 No canopy open

0.5
canopy open
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
variety

Figure 3: Interaction effect on light use efficiency

 Table 5: Main effects on crop phonology parameters under field condition

Treatments Days to flowering Days to Fruit Days to fruit

setting maturity
Canopy management

Canopy open 33.75b 47.417b 109.42b

No canopy open 37.66a 51.33a 113.67a
LSD 0.749 0.883 1.41
Variety

Hass 32d 45.6d 107.83b

Fruete 33c 47.2c 109.33b
Nabal 39a 53.2a 115.33a
Local 37b 51.5b 113.67a
Interaction NS NS NS
CV 2.43 2.07 1.46
LSD 1.06 1.24 1.99

Means sharing the same letter are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
 Number of bud per branch
450
400 a a LSD (0.05) = 14.7, CV (%) = 2.76
b c
350
300 d No canopy
e d e open
250
200 canopy open
150
100
50
0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
variety

Figure 4: Interaction effect on number of bud per branch

 LSD (0.05) = 12.9, CV (%) = 2.69
Number of flower per branch

400
a a
350 b
b
300 No canopy
c cd open
250 d
e
200 canopy open

150

100

50

0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
Vareity

Figure 5: Interaction effect on number of bud per branch

 Table 6: Main effects on yield parameters under field condition

Treatments Total number of Percentage of Percentage of Branch

fruit/ tree initial fruit set final fruit set yield
Canopy management
794a 56.333a 52.167a 8.85 a
Canopy open
No canopy open 769b 47.833b 42.25b 7.1b
LSD(0.05) 1.48 1.39 1.32 0.18

Varieties
Hass 811a 56.16a 51.16a 8.35b
Fuerte 797b 53.3b 48.6b 7.28c
Nabal 797b 56.3a 51.8a 9.66a
Local 720d 42.5c 37.16c 6.61d
CV (%) 0.84 3.09 3.24 1.72

LSD(0.05) 2.1 1.96 1.86 0.26

Interaction Ns Ns Ns Ns

Means sharing the same letter are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
 LSD (0.05) = 0.93, CV (%) = 1.6
50 a
45 b
40 c
Yield per hectare

35 d e No canopy
30 g open
f
25 Canopy open
h
20
15
10
5
0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
Vareity

Figure 6: Yield per hectare of four avocado tree varieties as influenced by

canopy management methods, 2022/23
 Table 7. Dry matter and PH and branch yield of four avocado varieties as influenced
by canopy management under field, 2023
Treatments
Dry matter (%) pH
Canopy management
Canopy open 40.1a 6.136b
No canopy open
35.9b 6.397a
LSD 0.3822 0.039
Variety
Hass 38.68a 6.43a
Fruete 37c 6.27b
Nabal 38.85a 6.25b
Local 37.66b 6.11c
Interaction NS
NS
CV 0.94 1.09
LSD 0.54 0.055

Means sharing the same letter are not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
 4
a
b LSD (0.05) = 0.0986, CV (%) = 1.98
3.5
c
3 d No canopy
d
open
TSS Concentration

2.5 e
f Canopy open
f
2

1.5

0.5

0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
Vareity

Figure 7: TSS concentration of avocado variety as influenced by canopy

management under field condition
 0.09 LSD (0.05) = 0.000283, CV (%) = 3.53
0.08 a
0.07 b No canopy
open
Titratable acid content

0.06 c
d Canopy open
0.05
0.04 e
0.03
f
0.02 g
g
0.01
0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local

Variety

Figure 8: Treatable acid content of avocado variety as influenced by canopy management

under field condition.
 160 a LSD (0.05) = 0.91, CV (%) = 0.32

140 c b
c No canopy
120 d e open
Fruit firmness
f
g Canopy
100 open
80
60
40
20
0
Hass Fruete Nabal Local
Variety

Figure 9: firmness of avocado variety as influenced by canopy management under field

condition.
 Table 8: Pearson Correlation coefficient(r) among light parameters and yield and yield components of
avocado varieties under canopy management 2020/2023

PAR R FR RUE NoB NoF PIFS PFFS TNFPT Y/H

R 0.91
FR 0.85 0.96
RUE 0.71 0.65 0.62
NoB 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.83
NoF 0.929 0.9 0.84 0.84 0.92
PIFS 0.65 0.68 0.59 0.53 0.70 0.70
PFFS 0.69 0.73 0.65 0.54 0.74 0.73 0.85
TNFPT 0.49 0.51 0.42 0.23 0.48 0.46 0.89 0.88
Y/H 0.77 0.77 0.68 0.54 0.8 0.79 0.95 0.96 0.87

Where, PAR = photo synthetically active radiation, R = red light, FR = far red, R: FR = red:far red ratio, RUE = radiation use efficiency,
NoB = number of bud/branch, NoF=number of flower/branch, TNFPT = total number of fruit per tree, PIFS = percentage of initial fruit set,
PFFS = percentage of final fruit set, Y/H = Yield per hectare, all values were significantly and positively correlated at (p≤0.001)
 4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 Canopy management does have a detrimental effect on the canopy light interception and
distribution, yield and quality of avocado tree fruits

 Better light penetration into the tree canopy improves;

tree growth,
productivity,
yield and fruit quality
 Conclu………

 Development of avocado varieties that are adapted to different environmental conditions

 It can help to increase the available knowledge regarding the behavior of avocado
varieties to canopy management

 The experiment was conducted under field condition to study the response of different
avocado varieties to canopy management
 Conclu………

 The result showed that;-

 Day to flowering,
 Days to fruit setting,
 Days to fruit maturity, were significantly affected by
 PAR, red, far red, the main effect of varieties and
 Total number of fruit/ tree canopy management
 Percentage of initial fruit set
 Percentage of final fruit set
 Branch yield
 Conclu………

The interaction effect of varieties and canopy management significantly influenced;

 Red: far red ratio,
 Radiation use efficiency,
 Number of bud,
 Number of flower,
 Yield per hectare,
 Total solid soluble,
 Firmness and
 Titratable acid.
 Conclu………

 Canopy opening treatments were significantly increased on all parameters compared

to full canopy, except for titratable acid content.
 Among tested varieties, Hass variety favorability responded to canopy management
as compared to Nabal, Fruete and local varieties.
 Maximum total yield per hectare was obtained from Hass variety followed by Nabal
and freute

 Correlation analysis indicates that all yield and yield component parameters were
significantly and positively correlated with light interception and distribution
variables
 Conclu………

 Study of the response of few avocado varieties to canopy management in this study
might not be enough to reach up on recommendation remarks,
but gives indicative information.

 Therefore, further research is needed to study other avocado genotypes in response to

canopy management.
 CH ! !
M U
V E RY
K Y OU
TH A N