Adv. Hort. Sci., 2019 33(3): 313-320 DOI: 10.

13128/ahs-23353

AHS
Advances in Horticultural Science
Influence of two training systems on
growth, yield and fruit attributes of
four apple cultivars grafted onto
‘M.9’ rootstock

A. Dadashpour 1 ( * ) , A.R. Talaie 1 , M.A. Askari-Sarcheshmeh 1 , A.

Gharaghani 2
1
Department of Horticulture, University College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 31587‐77871 Karaj,
Iran.
2
Department of Horticultural Science, College of Agriculture, Shiraz
University, P.O. Box 65186‐71441 Shiraz, Iran.

Key words: intensive planting, V-system, Y-system.

(*)
Corresponding author:
Abstract: This research was carried out to compare several attributes pertaining
[email protected] to the growth, fruit and yield of four apple cultivars, i.e. ‘Golab-kohans’, ‘Fuji’,
‘Starking’ and ‘Delbar estival’. These cultivars were grafted onto M.9 rootstocks
trained into ‘Guttingen V-slender-spindle (or V-system) and ‘Geneva Y-trellis (or
Citation:
DADASHPOUR A., TALAIE A.R., ASKARI-SARCHE-
Y-system) systems. Compared to the Y-system, it was observed that the V-sys-
SHMEH M.A., GHARAGHANI A., 2019 - Influence tem caused the trees to yield more fruits, dry matter, ash and total soluble
of two training systems on growth, yield and fruit solids (TSS). In contrast, the Y-system caused the trees to have broader trunk
attributes of four apple cultivars grafted onto cross sectional areas (TCSA), along with higher yield, fruit weight, fruit diame-
‘M.9’rootstocks. - Adv. Hort. Sci., 33(3): 313-320
ter, fruit length and fruit firmness, compared to trees trained with the V-sys-
tem. In summary, these results showed that both systems can be employed as
Copyright: promising approaches, but the ‘Y-system’ appears to be more productive than
© 2019 Dadashpour A., Talaie A.R., Askari- the ‘V-system’. In addition, among the studied cultivars, it seems that the
Sarcheshmeh M.A., Gharaghani A. This is an open
access, peer reviewed article published by
‘Delbar estival’ and ‘Fuji’ were more adaptive to these intensive training sys-
Firenze University Press tems, especially when considering the fruit traits.
(http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ahs/) and
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction 1. Introduction
in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Intensive training systems are particular layouts that assist orchard
managers in improving the productivity of orchards (Ferree and
Data Availability Statement: Warrington, 2003). The need to improve training and pruning methods
All relevant data are within the paper and its
Supporting Information files. can better fit the natural growing conditions, and this can be associated
with higher fruiting performances by the fruit trees (Lauri, 2009). Thus,
modern apple orchards are planned on the basis of higher tree density
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no competing interests.
than that of traditional planting systems which use dwarfing apple root-
stocks (Ferree and Warrington, 2003). Dwarfing rootstocks are increasing-
ly becoming prevalent among the sectors of the fruit industry. They are
Received for publication 5 June 2018 an important factor that improve orchard productivity due to their signifi-
Accepted for publication 22 March 2019 cant effects on agro -morphological characteristics such as the yield

313
Adv. Hort. Sci., 2019 33(3): 313-320

(Barritt et al., 1995). The Guttingen-V system, the Y- With 2.8% of the total harvestable area (134,000
system (Tatura), the Drilling system, and the Mikado ha) and 2.2% of the total production (1.7 million tons)
system are the most popular V-shaped canopy sys- in the world, Iran is among the largest producers of
tems, and are suggested as promising alternatives to apple after China, USA, Turkey, Poland, India and Italy
high density orchards (Robinson, 2000). Dwarfing (Faostat, 2012). The majority of apple orchards in Iran
rootstocks, such as M.9 and M.27, are generally are traditional ones. They are characterized by low
employed in V-shaped systems (Ferree and tree densities and are commonly grown on seedling
Warrington, 2003). V systems allow better light pene- rootstocks. However, semi-intensive and intensive
tration than other training-shaped trees (Robinson, apple orchards are recently becoming popular among
2003). The ‘Geneva Y-trellis’ system is a V-shaped apple growers. ‘Golden Delicious’ and ‘Red Delicious’
system which uses a Y shaped trellis to support the are two apple cultivars that are planted in about 90%
trees. The ‘Guttingen V-slender-spindle’ system of cultivated areas. Meanwhile, the early ripening cul-
includes individual conic-shaped trees allowing high tivar ‘Golab-Kohans’ is the most prevalent, native
tree densities within multiple rows. It has been apple cultivar in Iran. It provides the summer demand
reported that the Guttingen V causes the production for fresh apples in the market. Furthermore, ‘Granny
of higher yield per hectare and thinner trunks, com- Smith’, ‘Fuji’, ‘Gala’, ‘Jonagold’, and ‘Braeburn’ are
pared to the drilling system (Sosna and Czaplicka, increasingly becoming popular in the country
2008). Many investigations have shown that there (Gharaghani et al., 2015).
are significant differences between local and foreign As the apple industry in Iran is about to shift dra-
apple cultivars in terms of growth and productivity matically from traditional to modern production sys-
(Dadashpour et al., 2010; Dadashpour et al., 2011). tems, e.g. semi-intensive and intensive orchard, it is
Such reports also indicate the same with regard to important and necessary to study the performance of
apricot (Strikic et al., 2007) when trained by intensive popular apple cultivars on different rootstocks, espe-
training systems. Recently, it has been reported that cially within the context of various training systems.
rootstocks and training forms have significant effects Accordingly, the objective of this study was to evalu-
on the vegetative growth, yield and fruit traits of ate two training systems, i.e. ‘Guttingen V-slender-
apple cultivars (Alizadeh and Pirmoradiyan, 2016). It spindle’ and ‘Geneva Y-trellis’, and compare their
has been reported that the efficiency of several para- effects on growth characteristics, yield and fruit qual-
meters can be improved by more production or by ity of four apple cultivars. Their scions were grafted
the reduction in tree size (Fioravanco et al., 2016). onto M.9 rootstocks in the Alborz Province of Iran.
When apple scions are grafted onto dwarfing and
semi-dwarfing rootstocks, they usually produce larg-
er fruits and more yield, compared to when scions 2. Materials and Methods
are grafted onto non-dwarfing rootstocks (Perry and
Byler, 2001; Gjamovski and Kiprijanovski, 2011). Plant materials and experimental design
Negligible differences have been reported in the This research was conducted at an experimental
cumulative yield among ‘slender spindle’, ‘Hybrid field belonging to a horticultural research station,
Tree Cone’ (‘HyTec’) and ‘vertical axis’ (Crassweller Karaj, Iran. The duration of the entire experiment
and Smith, 2004). Rutkowski et al. (2009) studied took from 2007 to 2010. The average maximum tem-
nine training systems for apple trees, and reported perature of the region is 13.7°C, with an annual rain-
that the growth and yield of trees may be more fall of 254 mm. The soil in the region is classified as
dependent on genetic traits, while the shapes of clay-loam. The experiments were arranged as spilt-
trees can modify the skeletal structure of an orchard. plot (main plot: training system; split-plot: cultivar)
To this end, Gonkiewicz (2011) showed that trees according to a randomized complete block design
having spindle shapes can produce the best yield and (RCBD) with four replicates. Four apple cultivars were
fruit weight among the studied pruning systems in used, i.e. ‘Delbar estival’, ‘Fuji’, ‘Golab-kohans’ and
sweet cherry. By studying the ‘Fuji’ apple, grafted ‘Starking’, and their scions were grafted onto dwarf-
onto the M.9 rootstock under five training systems, ing M.9 rootstocks. All trees were planted in March
Ozkan et al. (2016) reported that there were signifi- 2005, and trellis systems were established in June
cant differences among the studied training systems 2006. The trees were trained into two training sys-
in relation to canopy volume, trunk-cross sectional tems, i.e. ‘Guttingen V-slender-spindle’ (V-system)
area (TCSA), yield, yield efficiency and fruit size. (0.9×3.7 m or 3000 trees/ha) and ‘Geneva Y-trellis’

314
 Dadashpour et al. ‐ Training systems of apple cultivars

(Y-system) (1.6×3.7 m or 1680 trees/ha), based on a Mettler PC 8000 scale. In addition, fruit firmness
the relevant protocols described by previous was measured using a penetrometer (Instron
research on apples (Robinson, 2003). Drip-irrigation Universal Machine, Model 1011) and recorded as
was scheduled to operate twice a week. The soil was kg.cm-2. Total soluble solids (TSS) were measured
fertilized once in every season and was managed with a Bausch and Lomb Abbe 3L refractometer.
according to the common practice in the region. Moreover, the dry matter content was determined
Trees received their first fertilizers in the second year after the fruits were exposed to a process of drying at
after planting. They were pruned during the winters, 70°C for 48 h. One gram of dry matter was burnt to
but the amount of wood being removed by pruning yield ash in a Gaallankamp furnace at 550°C for 6 h.
was not documented. Fruit thinning was performed if Titratable acidity (TA) was determined using an
necessary. The fruits were harvested manually. Aminex HPX-87H column which operated at 65°C,
Twenty representative trees within each replicate while 4 mM sulfuric acid was used as an eluent.
were selected for sampling and data collection. Data analysis
Agro‐morphological and yield traits The data were obtained by field measurements.
To calculate the Trunk Cross Sectional Area (TCSA), Laboratory observations were processed by analysis
the trunk circumference was measured (20 cm above of variance (ANOVA) using the SAS software and the
the graft union) from both sides (north-south) with a Duncan mean separation test procedure.
hand caliper. This was performed at the end of the
growing season in the November of 2007, 2008, 2009
3. Results
and 2010. The average measurement of the two sides
on the trunk were taken to make trunk diameter (R)
Agro‐morphological and yield traits
and “Area= πr2”. A formula assisted in calculating the
In general, all cultivars had developed a sufficient
TCSA in cm2. In addition, the cumulative yield per tree
stem diameter (data not shown). The analysis of vari-
and per hectare were recorded at harvest time
ance signified substantial differences among the cul-
(kg/tree and kg/ha). The yield efficiency was defined
tivars and training systems. Tree vigor was affected
as “yield per tree divided by TCSA (kg/cm2)”.
substantially by training systems. After four years,
Fruit properties there were significant differences in TCSA among the
All attributes pertaining to fruit traits were mea- four cultivars. ‘Golab-kohans’ exhibited the highest
sured using 5 randomly-sampled fruits from each test value of TCSA (17.12 cm2) (Table 1). The apple trees
tree. Then, their average was recorded. The individ- that were trained by the Y-system showed signifi-
ual fruit length, the fruit diameter and the ratio of cantly higher TCSA values (16.41 cm2) compared to
length to diameter (L/D) were calculated by a vernier those trained by the V-system which formed thinner
caliper. The fruits fresh weight was determined using trunks (9.80 cm2) (Table 2). The interaction between
Table 1 - Means comparison of four apple cultivars about studied characteristics in Guttingen V and Geneva-Y trellis systems during
2007-2010
Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Dry Cumulative Yield
TA Ash TCSA
Cultivar firmness weight diameter length L/D TSS matter yield efficiency
(%) (%) (cm)
(kg/cm2) (gr) (cm) (cm) (%) (Kg/tree) (Kg/cm2)
Delbar estival 10.00 b 130.15 b 6.57 b 5.81 a 0.86 a 14.53 a 0.45 bc 0.40 b 20.63 bc 16.4 a 0.41 a 9.58 c
Fuji 14.52 a 148.40 a 6.94 a 5.78 ab 0.83 b 15.33 a 0.68 a 0.35 b 23.89 ab 14.72 ab 0.1 c 14.69 b
Golab-kohans 8.44 c 79.25 c 5.72 c 5.01 c 0.86 a 11.23 b 0.28 c 0.38 b 19.56 c 7.72 c 0.1 c 17.12 a
Starking 14.37 a 143.99 a 6.63 b 5.58 b 0.82 b 14.56 a 0.47 b 0.73 a 24.14 a 10.64 b 0.22 b 10.98 c
Means with same letters are not significantly different. (P>0.05) using Duncan Multiple Range Test.

Table 2 - Properties in Guttingen V and Geneva-Y trellis systems during 2007-2010

Fruit Fruit Fruit Fruit Cumulative Cumulative Yield

TA Ash TCSA
System firmness weight diameter length L/D TSS yield yield efficiency
(%) (%) (cm)
(kg/cm2) (gr) (cm) (cm) (Kg/tree) (t/ha) (Kg/cm2)
Guttingen V 10.53 b 122.45 b 6.36 b 5.39 b 0.84 a 14.17 a 0.46 a 0.5 a 7.88 b 23.640 b 0.25 a 9.80 b
Geneva-Y trellis 12.90 a 126.69 a 6.54 a 5.69 a 0.84 a 13.55 a 0.47 a 0.43 a 16.72 a 28.089 a 0.22 b 16.41 a
Means with same letters are not significantly different. (P>0.05) using Duncan Multiple Range Test.

315
Adv. Hort. Sci., 2019 33(3): 313-320

training systems and cultivars showed that ‘Fuji’ had

the largest trunk diameter and the largest TCSA
(19.98 cm2) (Fig. 1A). Regardless of the training sys-
tem, ‘Delbar estival’ produced the most cumulative
yield (16.4 kg/tree) (Table 1). Table 2 shows that the
Y-system results in a higher average value of cumula-
tive yield per tree (16.72 kg/tree) and per hectare
(28.08 t/ha) than that of the V-system (7.88 kg/tree
and 23.64 t/ha, respectively).
The V-system contributed to a higher density of
trees (3000 tree/ha), compared to the Y-system
(1680 tree/ha). Results show that ‘Fuji’ and ‘Delbar
estival’ exhibited the most cumulative yield per tree
and per hectare, under the Y-system and the V-sys-
tem, respectively (Figs. 1B and 1C). Concerning the
yield efficiency, during the four years, regardless of
the training system, the ‘Delbar estival’ yielded the
highest amount of fruit per trunk cross sectional area
(Table 1). In addition, the V-system showed a higher
yield efficiency (0.25 kg/cm2), compared to the Y-sys-
tem (0.22 kg/cm2). A smaller trunk diameter and a
higher tree density per hectare can be reasons for
the higher yield efficiency (Table 2). The interaction
between training systems and cultivars functioned
mostly in determining the yield efficiency (0.57
kg/cm2) in the ‘Delbar estival’ through the V-system
(Fig. 1D).
Fruit properties
Results showed that the ‘Fuji’ cultivar yielded the
heaviest fruit weight (148.40 gr), whereas ‘Golab-
kohans’ had the lightest fruit (79.25 gr) (Table 1).
Trees trained by the V-system (as a denser system in
this study) developed fruits with an average lighter Fig. 1 Interaction of training systems (V-system and Y-system)
weight (122.45 gr), but the apples obtained from the and four cultivars (Delbar estival, Fuji, Golab-kohans,
Y-system were slightly heavier (126.69 gr) (Table 2). Starking) on fruit properties.
The ‘Starking’ cultivar exhibited the heaviest (159.69
gr) and longest fruit (6.1 cm) by the Y-system (Figs. (14.52 kg.cm -2 ) and the lowest was observed in
2A and 2B). In fact, the Y-system caused the ‘Golab-kohans’ (8.44 kg.cm-2) (Table 1). Also, trees
‘Starking’ to exhibit the maximum fruit length among trained by the Y-system yielded fruits with the great-
the four cultivars. The Y-system contributed to the est value of firmness (12.90 kg/cm2), compared to
production of fruits that were significantly longer the function of the V-system (10.53 kg/cm2) (Table
(5.69 cm) than those obtained by the V-system (5.39 2). ‘Fuji’ yielded the firmest fruits (15.96 kg/cm2) by
cm) (Table 2). In addition, the ‘Fuji’ yielded the the Y-system (Fig. 2D). The highest TSS (15.33%) and
widest fruit (6.94 cm) among the four studied culti- TA (0.68%) were produced by ‘Fuji’, whereas the low-
vars (Table 1). The Y-system caused a greater fruit est TSS and TA were recorded in the fruits of ‘Golab-
diameter (6.54 cm) than the V-system (6.36 cm) kohans’ (Table 1). The content of TA also differed
(Table 2). Figure 2C shows that the maximum width because of the training systems. The Y-system
of fruit (7.1 cm) was recorded in the ‘Fuji’ by the Y- caused higher TA values in fruits, compared to the V-
system. The highest L/D ratio (0.87) belonged to the system, but this difference was insignificant (Table 2)
‘Delbar estival’ by the Y-system. In general, the great- which suggests that the training system had no
est value of fruit firmness was observed in ‘Fuji’ remarkable influence on the acidity of fruits in this

316
 Dadashpour et al. ‐ Training systems of apple cultivars

research. The ‘Fuji’ yielded fruits with the highest

amounts of TSS and TA by the Y-system and V-sys-
tem, respectively. When comparing the cultivars,
‘Starking’ had the best results regarding the dry mat-
ter of fruits (24.14%) and ash (0.73%) (Table 1).
Regardless of the cultivar, the fruits contained more
dry matter when the trees were trained by the V-sys-
tem, compared to training by the Y-system (Table 2).
Additionally, ‘Starking’ yielded the highest amount of
ash by interaction with training systems examined in
this study (Fig. 2E).

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The results herein suggest that the cultivars and

training systems caused differences in the measured
characteristics. The occurrence of more tree growth
by ‘Golab-kohans’ may be due to a higher degree of
shading in the canopy than in other cultivars (Lo
Bianco et al., 2007). In addition to the influence of
rootstocks, cultivar vigor can be affected by training
systems. A lower TCSA was observed in trees of the
V-system. This can be attributed to the competition
between adjacent trees which, in turn, was a result
of shorter spacing between trees (0.9 m) in compari-
son with the Y-system (1.6 m). As reported by other
researchers (Musacchi et al., 2015; Sosna, 2017),
planting the trees closer to each other might have
negatively affected the stem diameter in this study.
These results are in accordance with the latest find-
ings in the available literature (Robinson, 2007;
Ozkan et al., 2016) in which intensive cultivations had
remarkable effects on tree growth. The greater yield
caused by the Y-system might be due to the larger
(wider) tree canopy. This result is in agreement with
recent reports which suggest that the number of
trees per unit area has a great influence on the yield
per tree and per hectare (Robinson, 2007; Ozkan et
al., 2016). In general, a more even distribution of
fruit-bearing can be observed in apple trees with V-
shaped canopies, as trained by the Y- and V-systems,
compared to other popular training systems. This has
been suggested before by similar research (Sosna,
2017). It is known that the yield efficiency depends
on the tree’s vegetative vigor and fruit production.
When the cultivar has good yield and high TCSA, a
lower yield efficiency occurs compared to trees of
other cultivars by the same yield and lower TCSA. A
lower tree vigor, as caused by the V-system, did not
Fig. 2 - Interaction of training systems (V-system and Y-system)
and four apple cultivars (Delbar estival, Fuji, Golab-
result in a higher yield efficiency. This can be due to a
kohans and Starking) on fruit properties. lower yield per tree. In fact, results show that a high-

317
Adv. Hort. Sci., 2019 33(3): 313-320

er yield efficiency can be attained by increasing the firming the findings of previous studies (Drake et al.,
number of fruits in each tree or by controlling the 1988; Dadashpour et al., 2010). In addition, differ-
tree vigor by dwarf rootstocks. Significant differences ences in fruit firmness might have been due to genet-
in yield efficiency were also reported in a previous ic variations among cultivars. In addition, it has been
study (Fioravanco et al., 2016). It may be assumed reported that fruit firmness is the first edible criteri-
that trees on dwarf rootstocks exhibit a weaker vege- on affecting buyer acceptance (Harker et al., 2008).
tative vigor and result in a higher amount of yield Considering the fruit sweetness, fruits and leaves
(Robinson, 2007). Nonetheless, the differences that are exposed to higher light intensities may
among cultivars in this study is likely due to the varia- exhibit more TSS (Tustin et al., 1988). Also, the differ-
tions in morphological traits, which is in agreement ent TSS contents among cultivars may result from
with previous studies (Barritt et al., 1995; variations in leaf area, as suggested by previous
Dadashpour et al., 2010). No incremental trend was research (Hudina and Stamper, 2002) or by a pre-
observed in the fruit weight during the four years, sumably higher canopy shading of cultivars which
even by the influence of training systems. The con- produce fruits of lower TSS (Garriz et al., 1996, 1998).
tradictory effects of planting density on the fruit Although the TSS was not significantly affected by the
weight in this study are consistent with earlier two training systems, the V-system caused slightly
reports (Ozkan et al., 2012; Sosna, 2017). higher levels of TSS than the Y-system (Table 2).
Nonetheless, fruit quality is influenced by many fac- Among the cultivars, the ‘Fuji’ produced the sourest
tors such as the specifications of a training system fruits. These results show that acidity, in general,
(Robinson et al., 1991). Therefore, it is natural to varies with cultivar, confirming previous studies
expect variations in the type of influence caused by (Platon, 2007; Dadashpour et al., 2010). The highest
the two different training systems on the measured amount of TA was observed in fruits of the ‘Fuji’ culti-
traits in fruits. The L/D (≥1) is a criterion used for var. This may have resulted from less shading in the
apple marketing, but all cultivars showed L/D <1 in tree canopy or because of good nutritional condi-
this study. This observation is probably due to tions. In general, the ‘Starking’ cultivar produced the
warmer nights in the climatic conditions of the exper- highest amount of dry matter, thereby confirming
iment, resulting in insufficient cell elongation. This previous claims regarding the differences among cul-
confirms the results of previous research tivars in this regard (Lata, 2007; Palmer et al., 2010).
(Dadashpour et al., 2011). Based on the current dis- In addition, the dry matter content varies among cul-
cussion, the ‘Delbar estival’ probably has the highest tivars, and different training systems cause variations
marketable value in terms of its visual appearance in the dry matter. The dry matter can vary from fruit
among the cultivars. The denser cultivation of trees to fruit and from training system to training system,
in the V-system contributed to the production of in agreement with a previous study (Palmer et al.,
fruits with lower amounts of coloration, but this was 2010).
not substantially different compared to the other In conclusion, the ‘Delbar estival’ exhibited better
training system. The good quality of apples obtained results under intensive training systems, whereas
from the V-system was noticed in previous studies ‘Golab-kohans’ and ‘Fuji’ showed the best growth
(Rutkowski et al., 2009; Dadashpour et al., 2012). It characteristics. In general, the Y-system was better
seems that the climatic temperature can affect the than the V-system when considering the majority of
fruit firmness. In most of the cultivars, the softest characteristics. The two cultivars ‘Fuji’ and ‘Delbar
fruits were observed in 2008 (as a cool year in this estival’ were more adaptable to intensive training
experiment). However, the relation between temper- systems in Karaj’s climatic conditions.
ature and fruit firmness is not fully understood. The
Y-system caused firmer fruits, compared to the V-sys-
tem (Table 2), and this confirms that fruits harvested References
from the Y-system can be transported with less phys-
ical damage. Significant differences in apple firmness ALIZADEH A., PIRMORADYIAN M., 2016 - Comparison test
support recent findings (Talaie et al., 2011). ‘Golab- of training systems and its influence on yield and fruit
quality of G. Delicious on clonal rootstocks. - Sci. Agri.,
kohans’ was the earliest ripening cultivar and pro-
14: 289-292.
duced the softest fruits (7.25 kg.cm-2) by the V-sys- BARRITT B.H., KONISHI A.S., DILLEY M.A., 1995 -
tem (Fig. 2D). The ‘Fuji’ produced the firmest fruits, Performance of three apple cultivars with 23 dwarfing
probably because of the small fruit size, thereby con- rootstocks during 8 seasons in Washington. - Fruit Var.

318
 Dadashpour et al. ‐ Training systems of apple cultivars

J., 49: 158-170. tion. - J. Agric. Food. Chem., 55: 663-671.

CRASSWELLER R.M., SMITH D.E., 2004 - Will high density LAURI P.E., 2009 - Developing a new paradigm for apple
work for processing apples? - Acta Horticulturae, 639: training. - Compact Fruit Tree, 42(2): 17-19.
661-665. LO BIANCO R., POLICARPO M., SCARIANO L., DI MARCO L.,
DADASHPOUR A., SHAKOURI M.J., FALLAH SHOJAIE Z., 2007 - Vegetative and tree reproductive behavior of
M.R. DODANGEH M.R., 2012 - Evaluation of growth, Conference and Williams pear trees trained to V‐Shape
yield and fruit characteristics of five apple cultivars on system. - Acta Horticulturae, 732: 457-462.
“Gutingen V” system during 2006‐2008. - Indian. J. Sci. MUSACCHI S., GAGLIARDI F., SERRA S., 2015 - New training
Technol., 5: 1840-1843. systems for high‐density planting of sweet cherry. -
DADASHPOUR A., TALAEI A.R., ASGARI-SARCHESHMEH Hort. Sci., 50: 59-67.
M.A., SHAHI-GHARAHLAR A., 2011 - Evaluation of OZKAN Y., YILDIZ K., KUCUKER E., CEKIC C., OZGEN M.,
agropomological properties of some commercial apple AKCA Y., 2012 - Early performance of cv. Jonagold
cultivars in an intensive planting system in Karaj cli‐ apple on M.9 in five tree training systems. - Hort. Sci.,
mate. - Tree For. Sci. Biotech., 5(1): 78-81. 39: 158-163.
DADASHPOUR A., TALAIE A.R., SHAHI-GHARAHLAR A., OZKAN Y., YILDIZ K., KUCUKER E., CEKIC C., OZGEN M.,
2010 - Effect of Gutingen V as an intensive training sys‐ AKCA Y., 2016 - Performance of ‘Fuji’ apple on M.9
tem on agromorphological characters on some apple rootstock in different tree training systems for the first
cultivars in Karaj region of Iran. - Genetika-Belgrade, five years. - J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 18: 1647-1653.
42: 331-338. PALMER J.W., HARKER F.R., TUSTIN D.S., JOHNSTON J.,
DRAKE S.R., LARSEN F.E., FELLMAN J.K., HIGGINS S.S., 1988 2010 - Fruit dry matter concentration: a new quality
- Maturity, storage quality, carbohydrate, and mineral metric for apples. - J. Sci. Food. Agric., 90: 2586-2594.
content of ‘Gold spur’ apples as influenced by root‐ PERRY R.L., BYLER G.V., 2001 - Effects of 19 rootstocks on
stock. - J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 116: 261-264. the performance of ‘Imperial Gala’ grown in the V sys‐
FAO, 2012 - FAOSTAT. Agricultural statistics database. - tem. - Acta Horticulturae, 557: 77-81.
FAO, Rome, Italy. PLATON I.V., 2007 - Preliminary results on planting system
FERREE D.C., WARRINGTON I.J., 2003 - Apples: botany, and density in apple. - Acta Horticulturae, 732: 471-
production and uses. - CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 473.
UK, pp. 660. ROBINSON T.L. 2007 - Effects of tree density and tree
FIORAVANCO J.C., CZERMAINSKI A.B.C., De OLIVEIRA shape on apple orchard performance. - Acta
P.R.D., 2016 - Yield efficiency for nine apple cultivars Horticulturae, 732: 405-414.
grafted on two rootstocks. - Ciênc. Rural., 46: 1701- ROBINSON T.L., 2000 - V‐shaped apple planting systems. -
1706. Acta Horticulturae, 513: 337-347.
GARRIZ P.I., ALVAREZ H.L., ALVAREZ A.J., 1996 - Influence ROBINSON T.L., 2003 - Apple‐orchard planting systems, pp.
of altered irradiance on fruits and leaves of mature 345-407. - In: FERREE D.C., I.J. WARRINGTON (eds.)
pear trees. - Biol. Plant., 39: 229-234. Apples: botany, production and uses. CABI Publishing,
GARRIZ P.I., COLAVITA G.M., ALVAREZ H.L., 1998 - Fruit Wallingford, UK, pp. 660.
and spur leaf growth and quality as influenced by low ROBINSON T.L., LAKSO A.L., CARPENTER S.G., 1991 -
irradiance levels in pear. - Sci. Hort., 77: 195-205. Canopy development, yield, and fruit quality of ‘Empire’
GHARAGHANI A., SOLHJOO S., ORAGUZIE N., 2015 - A and ‘Delicious’ apple trees grown in four orchard pro‐
review of genetic resources of pome fruits in Iran. ‐ duction systems for ten years. - J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.,
Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., 63: 151-172. 116: 179-187.
GJAMOVSKI V., KIPRIJANOVSKI M., 2011 - Influence of nine RUTKOWSKI K., KANTOROWICZ-BAK M., PACHOLAK E.,
dwarfing apple rootstocks on vigour and productivity of 2009 - Effect of different tree training systems on
apple cultivar ‘Granny Smith’. - Sci. Hort., 129: 742-746. growth and yielding of two apple cultivars. - J. Fruit
GONKIEWICZ A., 2011 - Effect of tree training system on Ornam. Plant Res., 17: 49-59.
yield and fruit quality of sweet cherry ‘Kordia’. - J. Fruit SOSNA I. 2017 - V‐shaped canopies in an apple orchard
Ornam. Plant Res., 19: 79-83. from the perspective of over a dozen years of research.
HARKER F.R., KUPFERMAN E.M., MARIN A.B., GUNSON - J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 19: 415-424.
F.A., TRIGGS C.M., 2008 - Eating quality standards for SOSNA I., CZAPLICKA M., 2008 - The influence of two train‐
apples based on consumer preferences. - Postharvest ing systems on growth and cropping of three pear culti‐
Biol. Technol., 50: 70-78. vars. - J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 16: 75-81.
HUDINA M., STAMPER F., 2002 - Influence of leaf area on STRIKIC F., RADUNIC M., ROSIN J., 2007 - Apricot growth
the sugar and organic acids content in pear (Pyrus and productivity in high density orchard. - Acta
communis) fruits cultivar Williams. - Acta Horticulturae, Horticulturae, 732: 495-500.
596: 749-752. TALAIE A.R., SHOJAIE-SAADEE M., ASGARI-SARCHESHMEH
LATA B., 2007 - Relationship between apple peel and the M.A., DADASHPOUR A., 2011 - Fruit quality in five
whole fruit antioxidant content: year and cultivar varia‐ apple cultivars trees trained to intensive training sys‐

319
Adv. Hort. Sci., 2019 33(3): 313-320

tem: Geneva Y‐trellis. - Genetika-Belgrade, 43: 153-161. on canopy light penetration, yield, and fruit quality of
TUSTIN D.S., HIRST P.M., WARRINGTON I.J., 1988 - ‘Granny smith’ apple. - J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113: 693-
Influence of orientation and position of fruiting laterals 699.

320