• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Main
 Tables
 Map to AREC-Dover
 IFAS description
 Copyright






Group Title: Research report - Gulf Coast Research & Education Center--Dover ; DOV 1994-2
Title: Effect of plant density on fruiting response of strawberry
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076465/00001
 Material Information
Title: Effect of plant density on fruiting response of strawberry
Series Title: Research report - Gulf Coast Research & Education Center--Dover ; DOV 1994-2
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Albregts, E. E.
Chandler, C. K.
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research & Education Center--Dover, University of Florida, IFAS,
Publication Date: 1994
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076465
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 104708895

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Tables
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Map to AREC-Dover
        Page 8
    IFAS description
        Page 9
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text




Gulf Coast Research and
Education Center-Dover
13138 Lewis Gallagher Road
Dover, FL 33527
GCREC-Dover Research Report
DOV-1994-2 (November 1994)


EFFECT 0 PLANT DENSITY ON FRUITING RESPONSE
OF STRAWBERRY ? ,


E. ALBREGTS AND C. K. CHANDLER 2.5 95


uni'ersiit of Fhy'i'h


16V1c3


;ITY OF


Institute of


Sciences








GCREC-Dover Researc Report DOV1994-2 November 1994

EFFECT OF PLA T DENSITY ON FRUITING RESPONSE OF STRAWBERRY

E. E. Albregts and C. K. Chandler1
Gulf C)ast Research & Education Center-Dover
University of Florida, IFAS
13138 Lewis Gallagher Road
Dover, FL 33527

Plant density in th strawberry fruit production field can affect the
fruiting response o strawberry as well as the cost of production.
Increasing the plant density will increase the cost per acre for plants.
In addition, higher plant densities can be more difficult to harvest
because of excess f liage. If there is more fruit rot with denser
planting, and there usually is, these fruit should be removed from the
plant and, in most in tances, should be removed from the field to reduce
spread of disease. A ditional costs may be incurred when harvesting fruit
from the more dense planting. In addition to the harvest costs, one needs
to consider the addit onal spray material needed to control the fruit and
foliage diseases with the more dense plantings. Disease will also be more
difficult to control because of lack of penetration of the foliage by
sprays. Because of th se and other problems, it is important to match the
cultivar with the plan density giving the best overall fruiting response.

Previous studies at D ver and Gainesville, with cultivars that have not
been grown in Florida in recent years, indicated that fruit yields could
be increased with the orrect plant density in the fruit production field.
High plant densities decreased fruit yield on a per plant basis but
increased them on a pr acre basis. The higher plant populations had
fewer fruit per plant, but the increased plant number resulted in higher
fruit yields. Plant ensity had little effect on earliness or average
fruit weight. Fruit rom the higher plant density treatments were more
difficult to harvest, because of the additional foliage which obscured the
fruit. Research in Gainesville has shown fruiting responses similar to
those at Dover. The a ove studies were conducted some 20 years ago with
cultivars no longer gr wn in Florida. In the last few years, cultivars
have been released wh ch have a more open bush with larger fruit and
longer fruit stems th n the older cultivars. Some cultivars have the
fruit more exposed to te sun which will reduce moisture levels around the
fruit and reduce disease infection The fruit are also more visible to the
harvester.

A two year study usin 'Selva', 'Seascape', 'Oso Grande', and 'Sweet
Charlie' cultivars was recently completed. Four plant density treatments
were used. One was th use of planting holes 12 inches apart with two
plants per planting hol The remaining plant spacings were 9, 12, and 15


'Professor Emeritus and Soil Scientist and Associate Professor of Plant
Breeding, respectively.










inches with one plant per planting hole. Plants per acre for the 6, 9,
12, and 15 inch spacing treatments were 44,000, 33,000, 22,000, and
11,000, respectively. The usual two plant rows per bed with bed tops of
2 feet and the standard practices of mulched and fumigated beds with
overhead irrigation were used. The fruit yields through January were
generally highest with the most dense plantings (Tables 1 and 2). The 15
inch plant spacing gave the lowest fruit yields through January during
both seasons. Although not significant, the highest seasonal fruit yields
during both seasons for 'Oso Grande' plants were with the 12 inch spacing.
Highest seasonal yields for 'Sweet Charlie' during both seasons were with
the two most dense plant treatments. The more dense the planting, the
greater the amount of cull fruit during both seasons (Tables 3 and 4). The
average fruit weight varied little during either season because of plant
density.

The runner production was counted each season, and the less dense the
planting the greater the number of runners produced (Table 5). If runner
production is more than two per plant, fruit yield may be reduced if
runners are not removed.

Summary

1. Increasing plant density can increase cost of production, make
harvesting more difficult, and increase cull yield.

2. Increasing plant density can increase runner production per plant.

3. Increasing plant density usually has little effect on average
marketable fruit weight.

4. Increased fruit production because of increased plant density is
mainly the result of an increase in the number of marketable fruit
produced. Number of marketable fruit per plant is less in a more
dense planting, but total number of marketable fruit is greater
because of more plants producing fruit per unit area.

5. Most of the time, higher plant densities will give higher early
fruit yields.

6. The best method to determine what plant density is best for your
management style and farm is to evaluate plant densities on your
farm using small plots. Place them in more than one area of the
field to note the effect of different soil types, soil moisture, and
soil fertility.






Table 1. Monthly and total marketable fruit yields of four cultivars as affected by plant density for
1992-93 season.


Monthly and total fruit yields (Ibs/acre)
Plant spacing Variety November December January February March April Total
(Inches)

6 Selva 552 3031 3038 2520 11837 1916 22893
9 100 2722 2197 3412 11010 2009 21450
12 "316 2433 1779 4213 11967 2317 23035
15 "142 2151 1705 3790 13065 1439 22292
Lineary NS ** ** NS NS NS NS

6 Sweet Chalie2092-- 54 5410 5711 4069 22741
9 --- 3356 5548 7270 5416 4125 25715
12 --- 2847 3851 4961 5877 3440 20925
15 --- 1870 3787 4432 5376 3092 18557
Linear NS ** NS NS *
Quadraticy ** NS NS NS NS NS

6 Seascape 508 3468 7325 1397 7395 3970 24062
9 646 2814 5514 3919 9699 2570 25152
12 287 3100 3804 2981 10910 3545 24626
15 282 1692 3881 2618 8461 2439 19374
Linear NS NS NS NS
Quadratic NS NS NS NS NS

6 Oso Grande --- 2127 7158 3204 9866 2367 24721
9 --- 3260 3909 5377 8571 1292 22409
12 --- 2858 5011 5734 16376 3880 33860
15 --- 1881 4020 6960 11702 1789 26352
Linear NS NS NS NS


Nonsignificant or significant at the 5% or 1% level, respectively.


YNS, *, **







Table 2. Monthly and total marketable fruit yields of 4 cultivars as affected by plant density for
1993-94 season.


Monthly and total fruit yields (lbs/acre)
Plant spacing Variety November December January February March April Total
(Inches)


6
9
12
15
Lineary
Quadraticy

6
9
12
15
Linear
Quadratic

6
9
12
15
Linear
Quadratic

6
9
12
15
Linear
Quadratic


Selva
II
II
I'
"1


Sweet Charlie
II
II



Seascape
II
II




Oso Grande


YNS, *, ** Nonsignificant or significant at the 5% or


742
225
203
130
*
*

494
745
601
390
NS
NS


2191
2107
2185
1225
NS
NS

6100
5128
3944
3630
**
**

450

301
10
NS
NS

1301
1211
1221
994
*


7772
5803
4774
3459
*
**

3594
4462
4681
3088
NS
NS

4844
6067
4917
2917
*
*

7765
4890
3960
3418
**
**


3587
2367
2907
1975
NS
NS

16496
15513
15034
13692
NS
NS

10509
8152
8978
6667
*
NS

4607
4288
4774
3970
NS
NS


4885
6150
4268
6538
NS
NS

3394
4055
4664
277
NS
NS

5204
5121
6554
6273
NS
NS

5941
7354
14611
8752
NS
NS


114
127
103
474
*
*


3123
3165
3251
3513
NS
NS

1674
827
1683
1834
NS
NS

125
375
1069
449
NS
NS


19293
16779
14440
13801
*
NS

33201
33068
32175
27084
**
**

22681
20167
22433
17701
**
**

19739
18118
25635
17583
NS
NS


1% level, respectively.






5




Table 3. Average fruit weight as affected by plant density during
1992-93 and 11 93-94 seasons.


Strawberry Cultlvar
Plant spacing Selva Sweet Charlie Seascape Oso Grande

(Inches) Average fruit wt. 1992-93 (g/fruit)

6 14.11 15.42 15.30 17.99
9 15.04 16.05 16.04 18.16
12 14.43 15.18 16.84 18.02
15 14.80 15.38 16.58 18.44

Lineary NS NS ** NS
Quadratic NS NS NS NS

Average fruit wt. 1993-94 (g/fruit)

6 14.27 16.53 18.45 15.94
9 14.34 16.64 19.35 17.45
12 14.98 16.74 19.31 16.61
15 14.24 16.36 19.69 17.32

Linear NS NS NS
Quadratic NS NS NS NS


YNS,*,** Nonsignificant
res actively.


or significant at the 5% or 1% level,











Table 4. Total cull yield of four cultivars as affected by
plant density during 1992-93 and 1993-94 season.


Strawberry Cultivar
Plant spacing Selva Sweet Charlie Seascape Oso Gran-e
(InchesJ
1992-93
Ibs/acre

6 14696 12534 14898 17743
9 10800 14006 13767 17436
12 11974 8511 9662 15192
15 8879 8109 8700 11651

Linear ** **
Quadratic NS NS NS
1993-94
Ibs/acre

6 8140 6899 4602 7639
9 6791 6877 4215 6273
12 6710 6284 3632 5669
15 4672 4841 3221 4515

Linear ** ** **
Quadratic ** ** **



YNS, *, ** Nonsignificant or significant at the 5% or 1% level,
respectively.









Table 5. Effect of cultivar and plant density on number of runners produced per
fruiting plant.


Plant spacing Selva Sweet Charlie Seascape Oso Grande

(Inches) ------------------ ------ 992-93---------------------------------

6 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.8
9 0.5 0.1 0.4 2.5
12 0.9 0.4 0.8 5.7
15 1.1 0.4 0.5 5.0

Linear NS NS NS
Quadratic NS NS *


6
9
12
15

Lineary
Quadratic


--------------------------------------1993-94-------------------------

0.1 0.0 0.0 9.2
1.7 0.2 0.0 14.0
1.8 0.3 0.0 13.6
2.2 0.8 3.3 18.1

NS *
NS NS NS NS


YNS, *, ** Nonsignificant or significant at the 5% or 1% level, respectively.










1-75







To 574
Mclntosh R.



To 574 \
Gallagher R AREC- \
an DDover



33
0.5
S Moore L ke Rd.

To 574
and Dover R
















To 574
Branch Forbes Road
























IFAS IS:


O The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida.
O A statewide organization dedicated to teaching,
research and extension.
O Faculty located in Gainesville and at 13 research
and education centers, 67 county extension
offices and four demonstration units throughout
the state.
O A partnership in food and agriculture, and natural
and renewable resource research and education,
funded by state, federal and local government,
and by gifts and grants from individuals, founda-
tions, government and industry.
O An organization whose mission is:
Educating students in the food, agricultural,
and related sciences and natural resources.
Strengthening Florida's diverse food and
agricultural industry and its environment
through research.
Enhancing for all Floridians, the application of
research and knowledge to improve the quality
of life statewide through IFAS extension
programs.









HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs