Greenhouse production of nectarines for early harvest in France : a cultivation system with shallow rest or no rest

HAL Id: hal-02854776

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02854776

Submitted on 8 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access

archive for the deposit and dissemination of

sci-entific research documents, whether they are

pub-lished or not. The documents may come from

teaching and research institutions in France or

abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents

scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,

émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de

recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires

publics ou privés.

Greenhouse production of nectarines for early harvest in

France : a cultivation system with shallow rest or no rest

Philippe Balandier, Rémy Rageau, . Inra, . Universite

To cite this version:

Philippe Balandier, Rémy Rageau, . Inra, . Universite. Greenhouse production of nectarines for early

harvest in France : a cultivation system with shallow rest or no rest. International Symposium Forest

Tree Physiology, Sep 1988, Nancy, France. �hal-02854776�

Greenhouse

_production

of nectarines for

_early

harvest

in

France:

a

cultivation

_system

with

shallow

rest

or no

rest

P.

Balandier

_{R. Rageau}

Laboratoire de

Bioclimatologie,

INRA, Domaine-de-Crouelle,

M0.?9 Clermont-Ferrand

Cedex,

France

Introduction

The

_greenhouse

cultivation

system

was

started

in

France

_{5 yr}

_ago.

The aim of this

system

was to

_supply

the market with

peaches

earlier than the southern

Euro-pean countries do

already. Although

the current

_system

_(modified

’Bellini

_system’)

has had favorable economic

results,

the

environmental

conditions were

determined

empirically

and are

_probably

not

_optimal.

The

_feasibility

of

_heating

the

_greenhouse

earlier or

_increasing

the

temperature

is often

_questioned

but,

unfortunately,

there

is

a lack of basic

_knowledge

about tree

physiology, especially

in

_experiments

such

as this one which involves the severe

cut-ting

back

of the trees in summer.

Arias and

Crabbe

_{(1975) studying}

cher-ry

trees, Barnola and co-workers

(1976)

studying

hazelnut

trees and

_Dreyer

and

Mauget (1986) studying

walnut

trees

found that buds

on

shoots

or

_parts

of

shoots which started

_growing

as a

result

of severe summer

_pruning

or water stress

never

reached

a

_high

level

of

_dormancy.

Erez

₍₁₉₈₇₎

carried

out a

similar

experi-ment on

_peach

trees _grown

under forced

conditions

in

Israel,

but looked more

closely

at bud

_development:

these

particu-lar buds seemed to

_experience

a low level of

_dormancy;

however,

this

_approach

was

rather indirect. A first

_study

on

nectarine

trees

_grown

in a

_greenhouse

was

carried

out

_by

_Rageau

and

_Ridray

_(1989),

with

the

following

conclusion:

no

_dormancy

in the

leaf buds and

_{slight dormancy}

in the

flower buds. These

conclusions

still have to be

confirmed,

especially

for the flower buds.

Materials

and

Methods

Experiments

were carried out with 3 yr old

nec-tarine trees

_{(cv Armking grafted}

onto

_peach

rootstock ’GF

30!3’)

which had been

’classically’

trained in containers for

_{greenhouse production}

(Rageau

and

Ridray, 1989).

In June

1987,

after the

_May

harvest,

3 of the trees were taken

out-side;

they

were not cut back

_{(treatment 0);}

in

August,

these trees suffered a

brief,

but severe water stress. The other treatments were: G: 4 trees were

_kept

at a low

_temperature

until

January

18th and then afterwards at a

tempera-ture above

15°C;

G/0: 3 trees were taken out-side on November 20th;

_H

_I,10

and

_H

_I,15

_:

on

December

22nd,

4 trees were

_put

into

tempera-ture-conditioned boxes

(2

at

10°C,

2 at

15°C)

and then

_they

were

_put

back into the green-house on

January

l8th;

_H

_II

_,

_10’

_HII.

₁₈

and

_Hn,

₂

_o

_:

on

_January

l8th,

6 trees were

_put

into

tempera-ture-conditioned boxes

(2

at

10°C,

2 at 18°C and 2 at

20°C)

and then

_put

back into the

greenhouse

on

_January

28th for

_H

_jj

₂₀

and on

February

4th for

_H

_II

_,

₁₀

and

_H

_II

_,

₁

_8’

The leaf bud

_{growth capacity}

was worked out

using

the ’one node

_cuttings’

method;

it was

quantified

by

the arithmetic mean

_(mean

time of bud

burst,

MTB)

of the individual burst time

lapse

under normal

conditions,

using

a

_sample

of about 100 buds on 20

shoots,

for each

sam-pling

date.

From 15 shoots about 100 flower buds were

sampled,

from which floral

_primordia

were

removed and

_{immediately weighed.}

The mean

weight (W)

of the fresh bud and the

corre-sponding logarithm

(LW)

were calculated for each

sampling

date. A number was

_given

to each

segment

representing

the

_growth

between two dates

plotted

in

Fig.

2; the

slope

a of each

segment (relative growth

rate

_during

this

_period)

and the mean

_temperature

(T)

were calculated. On the trees, at the end of the

_experiments,

using

a

large sample (about 500)

each leaf bud

was recorded as ’burst’ or ’not burst’.

Results

Growth

_capacity

of leaf buds

_(Fig.

₁₎

For all considered

treatments, the

regis-tered

MTB

values

never

reached the

’peak’

values

_generally

recorded

for

_peach

5 00!

trees

under normal cultivation

conditions

(>700

h).

With the

0

treatment, there

is

one of two

_{possibilities:}

either a

_’peak’

value

occurred

but was not

_recorded,

for

lack of suitable

_sampling

date

in

October,

or

_actually

it

did

not occur

_(a

_possible

explanation

is

that

it is

a

_{consequence of}

summer water

stress).

With

_moving

the

trees

from the

_greenhouse

to

outside

_(a

few

_{degrees (°C) cooler),}

the MTB with

the G/0

treatment

first

decreased

at a more

_rapid

rate, then afterwards

at a

slow-er rate

than

with

the G

treatment.

Growth

_capacity

of

flower

buds

_{(Figs. 2}

and 3)

Plotting

a

_against

T

seemed

to fit a

_single

response

curve,

the

same as

the

curve

drawn

_by

_Rageau

₍₁₉₈₂₎

with Redhaven

peach

trees,

during

the

_{post-dormancy}

period.

Nevertheless,

for many

treat-ments,

the a

values

corresponding

to the

early part

of the

_growth

curves were

rather

low,

especially

with the

_H,

treatments

_(the

very

low

value

_{corresponding}

to the

seg-ment 1 of

the

_H

_II

_,

₂₀

treatment seemed to stem

from

a

_sampling

or a measurement

Leaf bud

_breaking

on

the

trees

There

was a

difference between

the bud

breaking

percents

for

the different

treat-ments:

G/0:

88%

_(a);

G:

74%

_(b);

_H

_I

_,

₁₀

_:

62%

_(c);

_H

_l

_,

_1s

_:

64%

_(c);

_HII,

_1O

_:

77%

_(b);

H

II

.1B:

69%

_(b,

_c),

_H

_I

_I.

₂₀

_:

76%

_(b)

(signifi-cantly

different values -

5%

level -

are

Discussion and Conclusion

The

buds of the nectarine trees

’classical-ly’

trained for

_{greenhouse production}

experienced only

a

_slight

true

_dormancy

which could be detected for

the leaf

buds

by comparing

the

G and G/0

MTB curves

and for

the

flower buds the

_dormancy

was

detected

by

the

’low’

a

values

corre-sponding

to the

December

and

_early

January growth

curves.

This

_dormancy

seemed

_easy to overcome, even

with

the

H, experimental

conditions which did not

lead

to

_any

_problems

at the

_agronomic

level

_(good

fruit

_yield).

There

is no definite

conclusion that

no

_problems

would exist

if

the

_greenhouse

were to

be heated

earlier;

for

_example,

differences in

the

leaf bud

sprouting

on the trees took

_place

between

the December and

the

_{January heating}

treatments

and could be much

more

important

with earlier

_heating.

Further

stu-dies

are needed to

obtain

more

_precise

information

on

the

_ability

of the buds

and,

more

_particularly

the

floral ones, to

grow

during early

autumn.

References

Arias O. & Crabbe J.

(1975)

Alterations de I’état de dormance ult6rieur des

bourgeons

obtenus par diverses modalit6s de

_decapitation

estivale,

rdalis6es sur de

_{jeunes plants}

de Prunus avium L. C.R. Acad. Sci. Ser.

D 280,

2449-2452 Barnola

P.,

_Champagnat

P. & Lavarenne S.

(1976)

Taille en vert des rameaux et dormance des

_bourgeons

chez le noisetier. C.R. Seances Acad.

_Agric.

Fr.

16, 1163-1171

Dreyer

E. &

_Mauget

J.C.

₍₁₉₈₆₎

_Consequences

imm6diates et diff6r6es de

_p6riodes

de

s6che-resse estivale sur le

_{développement}

de

_jeunes

noyers

(Juglans regia

L. cv

-Pedro-):

dyna-mique

de croissance et de dormance automno-hivernale des

_{bourgeons. Agronomie}

6, 639-650

Erez A.

(1987)

Use of the rest avoidance

tech-nique

in

_peaches

in Israel. Acta Hortic. 199, 137-144

Rageau

R.

₍₁₉₈₂₎

Etude

_{experimentale}

des iois d’action de la

_temperature

sur la croissance des

bourgeons

floraux du

_pecher

(Prunus

persica

L.

Batsch)

pendant

la

_{post-dormance.}

C.R. Seances Acad.

_Agric.

Fr. 68, 709-718 8

Rageau

R. &

_Ridray

G.

₍₁₉₈₉₎

Nectarine culti-vation in

greenhouse

for

early

harvest in France: a

_management

_system

with rest

avoid-ance. International Peach

Symposium

I.S.H.S.,

1988, Clemson,

SC,

U.S.A. Acta Hortic. in press