Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T10:12:50.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Weed-Free Strip Width on Newly Established ‘Navaho' Blackberry Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen L. Meyers ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
David W. Monks  and
Wayne E. Mitchem
Stephen L. Meyers*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Wayne E. Mitchem
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Mills River, NC 28759
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: smeyers@ext.msstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2011 and 2012 at the Sandhills Research Station near Jackson Springs, NC to determine the influence of weed-free strip width (WFSW) on newly planted ‘Navaho' blackberry plant growth, fruit yield, and fruit quality. Treatments consisted of 0-, 0.3-, 0.6-, 1.2-, 1.8-, and 2.4-m WFSW. Predicted blackberry yield increased from 718 to 1,015 kg ha−1 at WFSW of 0 to 2.4 m. The currently recommended WFSW of 1.2 m resulted in a blackberry yield of 1,013 kg ha−1. Predicted individual blackberry fruit weight displayed a positive linear response to WFSW and increased from 3.1 to 3.6 g fruit−1 at WFSW of 0 to 2.4 m. Soluble solids content (SSC) of dull black blackberry fruit was greatest (15.1 Brix) when WFSW was 0 m. Relative to a WFSW of 0 m, SSC was reduced 2.3 to 3.4% as WFSW increased from 0.3 to 2.4 m, respectively. WFSW did not influence shiny black blackberry fruit SSC, nor titratable acidity, sugar-to-acid ratio, or pH of shiny or dull black blackberry fruit or primocane number, length, and stem caliper.

En 2011 y 2012, se realizaron estudios de campo en la Estación Experimental Sandhills, cerca de Jackson Springs, NC, para determinar la influencia del ancho de banda libre de malezas (WFSW) en el crecimiento, rendimiento y calidad de fruta de plantaciones nuevas de mora 'Navaho'. Los tratamientos consistieron de WFSW de 0, 0.3, 0.6, 1.2, y 2.4 m. El rendimiento predicho de la mora aumentó de 718 a 1,015 kg ha−1 al aumentar WDSW de 0 a 2.4 m. El WFSW actualmente recomendado, el cual es 1.2 m, resultó en un rendimiento de 1,013 kg ha−1. El peso individual predicho del fruto mostró una respuesta lineal positiva al WFSW e incrementó de 3.1 a 3.6 g fruto−1 al incrementar WFSW de 0 a 2.4 m. El contenido de sólidos solubles (SSC) de los frutos de mora mate fue mayor (15.1 Brix) cuando WFSW fue 0 m. En relación a WFSW de 0 m, SSC se redujo de 2.3 a 3.4% al incrementarse el WFSW de 0.3 a 2.4 m, respectivamente. WFSW no influenció el SSC de frutos de mora brillantes, ni la acidez titulable, el ratio azúcar-ácido, o el pH de frutos brillantes o mate de mora ni el número, largo y calibre del tallo vegetativo.

Keywords

Blackberry, Rubus spp. ‘Navaho’Orchard floor management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 426 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Alleyne, V, Clark, JR (1996) Nitrogen fertilizer effect on postharvest quality of ‘Arapaho' thornless blackberry fruit. HortScience 31:760 Google Scholar
Bowen, P, Freyman, S (1995) Ground covers affect raspberry yield, photosynthesis, and nitrogen nutrition of primocanes. HortScience 30:238–241 Google Scholar
Buckelew, JK (2009) Orchard Floor Management in Young Peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.]: Effects of Irrigation, Vegetation-Free Width, and Certain PRE Herbicides. Ph.D dissertation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 104 pGoogle Scholar
Childers, NF, Morris, JR, Sibbett, GS (1995) Modern fruit science. Gainesville, FL: Hort. Publ. Pp 536–550 Google Scholar
Fan-Chiang (1999) Anthocyanin Pigment, Nonvolatile Acid and Sugar Composition of Blackberries. . Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 90 pGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, G, Ballington, JR (1999) Growing blackberries in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv. 9 pGoogle Scholar
Glenn, MD, Newell, MJ (2008) Long-term effects of sod competition on peach yield. Hort Technol 18:445–448 Google Scholar
Kader, AA (1991) Quality and its maintenance in relation to the postharvest physiology of strawberry. Pages 145–152 in Dale, A, Luby, JJ, eds. The Strawberry into the 21st. Portland, OR: Timber Press Google Scholar
Milosevic, T, Milosevic, N, Glisic, I, Mladenovic, J (2012) Fruit quality attributes of blackberry grown under limited environmental conditions. Plant Soil Environ 58:322–327 Google Scholar
Perkins-Veazie, P, Collins, JK, Clark, JR (1996) Cultivar and maturity affect postharvest quality of fruit from erect blackberries. HortScience 31:258–261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins-Veazie, P, Clark, JR, Huber, DJ, Baldwin, EA (2000) Ripening physiology in ‘Navaho' thornless blackberries: color, respiration, ethylene production, softening, and compositional changes. J Am Soc Hort Sci 125:357–363 Google Scholar
Perng, CM (1988) Influence of Sugar and Acid on Sensory Qualities and Desirability of Blackberry Juice Drink Using Response Surface Methodology. . Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 123 pGoogle Scholar
Takeda, F, Hummell, AK, Peterson, DL (2003) Effects of cane number on yield components in ‘Chester Thornless' blackberry on the rotatable cross-arm trellis. HortScience 38:377–380 Google Scholar
Tworkoski, TJ, Glenn, DM (2001) Yield, shoot and root growth, and physiological responses of mature peach trees to grass competition. HortScience 36:1214–1218 Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agriculture Statistics Service (2004) 2002 Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Pp 41, 496Google Scholar
USDA-NASS (2007) Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: USDA-NASS. Pp 43, 561Google Scholar